Questions for Oral Answer
Industry Training—Skill Needs

1. HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education): What progress is the Government’s industry training strategy making in meeting the skill needs of business?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)): Our new industry training 2002 publication, which I will seek to table at the end of this question, reports that a 12 percent increase in trainees, to 106,997, took place during that year, and that a 12 percent increase in participating employers, to 24,576, took place. These are very good results to report as we complete the first year of the second term of a Labour-led Government. According to the Business New Zealand survey released at the Industry Training Federation conference, nearly three-quarters of firms believe that staff training and skill development improve their company performance.

Helen Duncan: How broad is the support for workplace learning as a means of obtaining productive and effective workplaces?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: We have support from both business and unions. In fact, next week I will be joining with Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions to launch our tripartite Skill New Zealand campaign. Surprisingly, support for skill development is not universal. An alternative approach of simply firing employees after 2 to 3 years when they get “a bit stale” was promoted in a recent email newsletter this month by the unofficial leader of the National Party, Mr Don Brash, who has been trying to implement this policy in recent months.

Simon Power: Does the Minister agree that the Industry Training Strategy, initiated by the National Government in the early 1990s, is successful because it is industry-owned and industry-led, in the light of recent findings from the Business New Zealand and Industry Training Federation survey that 42 percent only of respondent businesses were aware of an industry training organisation covering their enterprise or industry; how does the Minister hope to achieve his own target of 250,000 in formal industry training by 2007?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think that the secret of success has been the partnership between the Government, the employers, and the trade unions. I point out that, in terms of awareness, the National Party is so out of touch it sent its early childhood education spokesperson to the industry training conference, who confessed when he was there that he did not know what an “ITO” was.

Craig McNair: What effort has been made by the Minister to integrate the tertiary education system and to ensure that polytechnic courses, which offer continued upskilling, are not viewed as a second-rate option to university?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: That very issue has been at the centre of the tertiary education reform process, which has at its heart the integrative funding framework ensuring that skills are treated as equal to other forms of education.

Jill Pettis: What are the future prospects for industry training in New Zealand?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The prospects for industry training are bright in most workplaces as we move towards having 250,000 trainees, with further investment by this Government. But I do know of one workplace—the National Party—where people are not allowed to learn from their mistakes, and where they are not allowed to take their experience and provide for the effective operation of that workplace.

Questions for Oral Answer
Deputy Prime Minister—Confidence

2. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in her Deputy Prime Minister; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, but of course it is possible that the proceedings in the next few minutes may lead her to change her mind.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise with you a point of order that was raised with you yesterday. In particular, I refer to Speakers’ Rulings and the ruling I raised with you yesterday by Speaker Tapsell about transferring questions. I seek from you a ruling that Ministers should not transfer questions if they can reasonably answer them. I want to draw this to your attention today because the situation is very interesting. As I picked up the Order Paper I thought that I have not seen for a very long time: here is the Prime Minister willing to answer not one, nor two, but three questions, whereas, as pointed out yesterday, she normally answers only one question—whether she has confidence in a colleague—which can be answered only by her. We clearly see that when Mr Cullen is acting as Prime Minister he is prepared to answer questions, but Helen Clark is not. I think that that is further evidence of what we might see tomorrow—or when the real Prime Minister returns and decides to visit us again—when we will have a look at the question of whether she is transferring questions. If Dr Cullen can answer questions, and the “other” Prime Minister cannot, perhaps the Labour Party might like to take that into account, too.

Mr SPEAKER: No. That is more a political point than a genuine point of order. In fact, there is a Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister leaves the country there has to be an Acting Prime Minister, and Dr Cullen will answer in that regard.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The fact is that this Prime Minister this week will answer one question in the House. Yesterday, in answer to an identical question, the Prime Minister said that the statement was made by another member of her Cabinet who was not present, nevertheless, she would answer for her. Now, that is it for the week for this Prime Minister. We know that she is there in her room right now—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am going to finish this because it is a major point.

Mr SPEAKER: I want the member to be seated, please. I want the member to come to the point of order. It was said that the Prime Minister was not present. I said that from evidence that I have. If I am wrong I apologise, but I am pretty certain I am not wrong.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You are wrong. My point is this. Yesterday you allowed her to transfer that question, but today it is in her name as the person to answer it, and she is not here. I can raise that fact. What you’ve got here is a Prime Minister who is transparently ducking question time in the House, and it does not befit—

Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated. I am finished with that point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I haven’t.

Mr SPEAKER: I have. The member will be seated. Points of Order
have to be terse. I have a circular from the Cabinet Office, which states that the Rt Hon Helen Clark will be absent from 23 pm to 29 July, which means that the Acting Prime Minister is the Hon Dr Michael Cullen.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That applies from 11 o’clock tonight—that is my first point. Secondly, I require a fair chance to put my point of order and to get the facts right, as you have not done so. Thirdly, I was denied a television interview because the Prime Minister was being interviewed on television at that very same time. It is all very well to deal with the media, but the fact is that the Prime Minister owes this House her attendance and some political accountability. My party and I will not put up with it. We in this House demand the right to put sound Points of Order
, and not to have democracy decay into some kind of Third World shambles.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Firstly, this question was not on the Order Paper yesterday, and nothing like it was on the Order Paper—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes it was.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I can assure the member that there was no question yesterday about confidence in the Deputy Prime Minister; if there had been, I would have sat there listening with some eagerness.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No. 5.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. Five? I think the member means No. 4 or No. 6, which both refer to a quotation that the Prime Minister actually made, which was not the case with the question yesterday. The Prime Minister is on her way to Auckland. She will then proceed to Townsville to talk to the Australians, and then to Korea for the 50th anniversary of the end of the Korean War. She is not available to answer questions today.

Larry Baldock: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the time that I have been privileged to be in this House, one thing I have learnt is that any member’s word is considered to be absolute. We are never allowed to challenge another member and say that he or she is not telling the truth or is mistaken. If member says that they are correct, then they are correct. How is it, then, that Mr Peters has been able to stand up in this House and say that you are wrong, and not have to apologise for that?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not require any assistance on this matter. The member will sit down, and not interject during Points of Order
. The member knows that rule, and he very nearly left the Chamber there. I determined that I might have been in error. I am not perfect, and have never claimed to be. I might have been wrong, but, in fact, I was not.

Hon Bill English: In the light of the statements made by the Deputy Prime Minister that there is no legislation regarding title to the beaches and the seabed, is it the Prime Minister’s intention to introduce legislation to this House that states that the Government now does own the beaches and the seabed?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I invite the member to more carefully read what the Deputy Prime Minister said in that regard. There is no legislation that asserts Crown ownership of all the seabed and foreshore. There is legislation that deems ownership to be vested in the Crown of the seabed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Acting Prime Minister because she thinks he can answer the questions, and because he has the intellectual rigour to come down and have a go at it, whereas she cannot do that, and is that the reason that the Acting Prime Minister and a number of front-benchers lined up in September 1996 to get rid of her?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member’s memory is in error: it was not in September 1996. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Does Mr Prebble want to remain in the House?

Hon Richard Prebble: Do I want to remain in the House?

Mr SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon Richard Prebble: I would rather like to.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I said the event happened in September 1996. Up gets the Deputy Prime Minister, whose hearing has apparently gone on him, and claims I said “December”. That is what all the laughter was about.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member’s memory is in error. It did not happen in September 1996.

Hon Bill English: Why will the Prime Minister not directly answer the simple question: does the Government intend to bring in legislation that states that the Crown owns the seabed and the foreshore, where other people do not own it?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: A Government caucus committee is working through reconciling the issue of ensuring traditional access rights of all New Zealanders to the seabed and foreshore, with the preservation of Mâori customary rights, where they may exist. The answers to those issues cannot be fitted on a taxpayer-paid billboard.

Hon Richard Prebble: What conclusion can the House take from the involvement of the Minister of Finance in the seabed and foreshore issue; is it that the Prime Minister has no confidence in the Hon Margaret Wilson, or is it that the Labour Government believes that it will be spending very large sums of taxpayers’ money on this issue, hence the involvement of the Minister of Finance? Which one is it?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I suspect it is when volunteers were called for the Minister of Finance was slowest to step backwards.

Questions for Oral Answer
Local Government—Funding

3. PAUL ADAMS (United Future) to the Minister of Local Government: Does the Government have any plans to address the pressure on local government funding sources, as illustrated by the Auckland rates crisis?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government): Local authorities set their own rates, and they are accountable for those to their own communities. The Government recently enacted the Local Government (Rating) Act, which ensures transparency in rating decisions, and at the same time gives local authorities greater flexibility in how they fund their services.

Paul Adams: In order to address the pressure on local government funding sources, will the Government consider increasing the percentage of funding allocated by Transfund New Zealand for local roads from the current maximum of 47 percent to a maximum of 80 percent, thereby alleviating one of the biggest drains on local government funds; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: This Government has a proud record of funding infrastructure, which is, of course, the primary cost to local authorities. I could mention, for instance, the 20 percent increase in roading since 1999.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How on earth could that answer be said to be even addressing the question. The member was asked a specific question on whether the Government would agree to an increase in the percentage funding by Transfund New Zealand, and he stood up and said that we have a proud record on infrastructure. That may or may not be true. He could be proud of it, but that has nothing to do with the question he was being asked.

Mr SPEAKER: It is not directly the Minister’s responsibility, but I think the Minister could give a more direct answer to the question that was asked.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: My responsibility as Minister of Local Government is to be an advocate for local territorial authorities. In fact, I therefore was in a position to comment on how much support this Government had given for infrastructure support. It is not my responsibility to discuss or comment on transport issues.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He says he is in a position to comment on how much support this Government has given. Then he leaves it at that. So we are still no wiser as to the primary question and the secondary one. Secondly, when he began his answer, none of us could hear it.

Mr SPEAKER: The only valid point the member makes—because the Minister did address the question—was the business about hearing it. I had some difficulty hearing it. I would ask the Minister to repeat it.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I would be very proud to answer that question again—I will use my best classroom voice. As Minister of Local Government it is my responsibility and indeed my privilege to act as an advocate for local government. I have done that on the transport issue. I am commenting that this Government has given a 20 percent increase since 1999 in transport funding. It is not my responsibility or indeed my ability to comment on individual transport decisions.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Surely the supplementary questioning call should go from side to side. That was a Government question.

Mr SPEAKER: The Labour Party, as the largest party, gets the first supplementary question.

David Parker: What other steps has the Government taken to help local authorities fund expensive infrastructure costs?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: As I said earlier, infrastructure is a major cost to local authorities. We have significantly increased funding for roading. We have introduced—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How can that question be in order? The primary question dealt with sources of funding causing pressure for local government. These days local government, with the power of general competence, ranges into all sorts of activities. For the Government to decide to narrow this down simply to infrastructure and allow the Minister some sort of a free hit on the goodies that the Government is pushing out into Auckland is totally unacceptable.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I think the member is right. That question is disallowed.

Gerry Brownlee: Will the Minister accept that rate rises across the country are largely due to the new Local Government Act, which has seen extraordinary extra costs loaded into councils in order that they might meet their statutory obligations, and what does he say to all those residents in Auckland who are feeling that this is excessive, unacceptable, and, as Mr Adams described, a rate crisis in Auckland?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: This new local government legislation increases ratepayers’ opportunity to participate in council decision-making on rating policies.

Hon Ken Shirley: Does the Minister consider it fair that on average Auckland Regional Council ratepayers are facing property tax increases of over 30 percent, with some facing several hundred percent increases, to pay for services that they have never used, and never intend to use; if he does think it is fair, could he explain why, and if he does not think it is fair, could he tell us what he will do about it?

Mr SPEAKER: There are three questions there. The Minister can comment on two of them.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I will repeat my answer to the initial question. Local authorities set their own rates, and they are accountable for them.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I sympathise with this junior Minister, who has clearly run out of notes and is starting again, but that is not how question time works. If the member had wanted to ask the first question he would have asked it. He was asked a completely different question.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister was asked to comment about Auckland Regional Council increase in rates. I ask the Minister to continue with his answer.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Ultimately, the decision by Auckland Regional Council councillors will be judged by their constituents at next year’s local body election.

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very precise—that is, does the Minister consider it fair that those property taxes are going up on average of over 30 percent? I want to hear the Minister’s view. He just told us that he has responsibility for local government. Does he consider it fair?

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is not forced to give an opinion like that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Minister is not forced to give an opinion like that, why did you allow the question? The question was whether he thought it was fair. The Minister said that ultimately the decision as to its fairness would be made by the local ratepayers. Frankly, he is not an expert on electoral law, democracy, or anything else, by the sound of it. Surely, he has been asked to address the primary question, which you thought was proper when it was put to him.

Mr SPEAKER: I thought that the primary question was proper. I may have been a little more generous on the supplementary question.

Paul Adams: In order to address the pressure on local government funding sources, will the Government commit to providing local authorities with a GST rebate on the amount they collect from rates, which is nothing but a tax on a tax, anyway, and which currently costs ratepayers an extra $200 million annually?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Not at this time.

Paul Adams: Noting the Minister’s answers to my previous question, has the Minister seen any reports that at the time of the passage of the GST legislation it was the Government’s intention to remove the GST component from local rates bills, and will he advocate for this with the Minister of Revenue?

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is another one of those questions that take up heaps of time. It is way wide of the wicket. We have something about funding pressures on local government. The Minister has made it clear that the Government does not care about that. It is not going to help local councils, so why do we get this question?

Mr SPEAKER: I think that the member is being a little unreasonable. I try to allow reasonably wide questioning. Technically, the member is absolutely right. I was going to allow the Minister to comment, but the member has properly raised a point of order. The question is out of order.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I actually recall the matter, and I am quite happy, with leave, to give the answer.

Mr SPEAKER: So do I, but neither of us can.

Hon Peter Dunne: I also recall the answer to the question, because I was there, as well. But I submit to you that the primary question relates to the current rates crisis in Auckland. The supplementary question addresses ways in which that might be alleviated. Surely it is in order for the member to ask the Minister what his response is to particular funding solutions that might alleviate that crisis.

Mr SPEAKER: I have thought about this. I think the member is perfectly correct. I will ask Mr Paul Adams to ask the question again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the voting record, which shows that both Mr Dunne and Mr Prebble voted for rates to be GST taxed.

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

Paul Adams: Noting the Minister’s answer to my previous question, I ask whether he has seen any reports that at the time of the passage of the GST legislation it was the Government’s intention to remove the GST component for local rates bills, and will he advocate for this with the Minister of Revenue?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I personally have not seen any of those reports. As far as being an advocate for this particular issue, the Prime Minister and other Ministers, including the Minister of Revenue and myself, meet with mayors every 6 months. If this issue is raised, I am sure we will discuss it.

Larry Baldock: Noting the current funding pressures facing local government, I ask whether the Minister is aware that the Inland Revenue Department is looking at requiring councils to pay GST even on rates the council has remitted, such as on multiple-owned unused Mâori land, as per its rates remission policy mandated by the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002; if so, does he agree that this would seem to be an unfair additional burden on ratepayers?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I have not been aware of that information, but I am happy to discuss it with the member further.

Questions for Oral Answer
Foreshore and Seabed—Crown Ownership

4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that “Ownership of the foreshore and seabed has long been considered to lie with the Crown …”; if so, will her Government legislate to ensure that the Crown has exclusive title to the seabed and foreshore?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister): The Prime Minister stands by her statement. The Government is working on a statutory framework that ensures that private exclusive titles are not created over what has always been considered the public domain. Customary rights are provided for in that framework.

Hon Bill English: If the framework is going to prevent private exclusive title, is it going to establish public Government-owned exclusive title, or not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member will have to wait to see the proposals as they emerge. I think he will be surprised by the creativity that has been applied to the problem.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister agree that Mâori have simply asserted their customary title as the exercise of their rangatiratanga, which is distinctly different to a private exclusive Pâkehâ model of title; and what is the Government doing to allay the scaremongering tactics pursued by other political parties, and provide information on the differences between private exclusive Pâkehâ title and Mâori customary title to the New Zealand public, who desperately need to hear this?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There has certainly been a great deal of talking at cross-purposes on the issue, as the member’s question implies. A Government caucus committee is working on the issue. When a more full proposal is ready we propose to consult on that with other political parties, with Mâori, with local government, with recreational interests, and with others.

Rodney Hide: When the Minister of Finance said that negotiations with Mâori over customary rights to the foreshore and seabed were on track for a win-win solution, what was in the Minister’s mind that Mâori might win and non-Mâori might win out of those negotiations?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I understand that what was in the Minister of Finance’s mind is that traditional access rights of all New Zealanders to the seabed and foreshore would be asserted and preserved, and that the right of Mâori to apply for recognition of Mâori customary rights through the Mâori Land Court would also be preserved.

Hon Bill English: To relieve public concern, why does the Government not tidy up its mess by simply stating that the Government will bring in legislation that will confirm or state that the Crown owns the seabed and the foreshore?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Even if we did that, it would not prevent the assertion of Mâori customary rights.

Questions for Oral Answer
Child Abuse—Crimes Act

5. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister of Justice: Why is the Government not moving to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 immediately as one means of addressing the increasing abuse of children identified in the most recent Social Report?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): The Social Report does not show an increase in the rate of child abuse over the 6-year period its statistics cover in this area, nor does section 59 of the Crimes Act provide a defence to the types of abuse and neglect of children recorded in that report. However, the Government is currently putting in place a public education campaign on alternative and more effective forms of disciplining children than smacking. Changes to the law on physical punishment of children will be considered once the campaign is under way and has been evaluated.

Sue Bradford: In the light of the fact that the Minister will not move to repeal section 59 immediately, under what circumstances does he think it is OK for parents to hit or physically assault their children?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Section 59 of the Crimes Act sets out quite clearly the answer to that question—that is, every parent of a child, and every person in place of a parent of a child, is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable under the circumstances. The cases referred to in the Social Report would not be regarded as reasonable by anyone in the community, let alone any judge looking at that.

Mita Ririnui: Why is it considered important that a public education programme precede consideration of changes to the law?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Law change without attitudinal change and an awareness of alternatives to the use of force is unlikely to be effective.

Sue Bradford: How does allowing parents, for example, beat their children with a stick or a piece of hose, comply with provisions of the new Care of Children Bill, which states, amongst other things, that: “The welfare and best interests of the child must be the first and paramount consideration in any other proceedings involving the guardianship of, or the role of, providing day-to-day care for or contact with a child.”?

Hon PHIL GOFF: It does not. I am aware of four cases determined by jury trial where the use of a physical implement was regarded by the jury as constituting reasonable force. One of the options open to this House is to redefine what is reasonable force, in the same way the Parliament in New South Wales has. The survey of public opinion in New Zealand shows overwhelmingly the public belief that reasonable force is only smacking with an open hand and then not about the head or the neck.

Sue Bradford: How can the Government persist in justifying this legalised physical abuse of children, when we do not tolerate it legally with adults?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The member will find, if she looks at the research I had done through the Ministry of Justice, that the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders—in fact, 80 percent—do not believe that a person should be prosecuted for smacking a child, as a form of discipline, with an open hand.

Questions for Oral Answer
Foreshore and Seabed—Crown Ownership

6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: When she made her statement reported in the New Zealand Herald of 24 June 2003 as “ownership of the seabed and foreshore had long been considered to lie with the Crown and legislation would clarify that”, did she personally have confidence in herself to make that statement; if so, how does she reconcile that statement with the Labour Maori members’ statement given on the same day?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister): The Prime Minister has complete confidence in the statements she has made on this issue, and has no difficulty reconciling them with other statements she has seen and heard on this issue.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is so, why, with regard to question No. 3 yesterday—of identical intent and meaning and from the same source—did she duck it, and why was she not prepared to face up to this House and answer the question yesterday, and, more important, tell us how she reconciles it with the Mâori members’ statement?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The question yesterday referred to a different statement. The Prime Minister has checked the press conference and cannot find any record of her having made the statement referred to yesterday. The Attorney-General certainly did make that statement.

Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister intend to stand by the substance and intent of the statement made about a month ago, referred to in this question, that ownership of the foreshore and seabed has long been considered to lie with the Crown and that legislation would clarify that?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Legislation will certainly be used to clarify the fact that all New Zealanders have rights of access to the seabed and foreshore, and that they cannot be affected by any title being granted that gives exclusive rights.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Prime Minister seeking to duck the issue, which was that on 24 June the Dominion Post reported: “Ms Wilson and Prime Minister Helen Clark said the planned law change would clarify that the Crown, and thus the general public, owned beach foreshores and the seabed.”; and why was it, yesterday, of such moment to duck out of that, were it not for the fact that she is too scared to come down here and—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will withdraw and apologise for that last comment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise—were it not for the fact that she is lacking what it takes to come down—

Mr SPEAKER: That is out of order, also. The member is just trifling with me, as Chair. He is very close to being sent out. That last part of the question is struck out. The first part can be answered.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: It had better not be in any way challenging my ruling.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise, and I want to complete the question.

Mr SPEAKER: It has been completed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, it has not. You have ruled it out.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I am sorry, I did not rule the question out. I ruled the last part of it out, and I want the Minister to answer it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have apologised twice for imputations. Now I want to complete the question the way it was properly phrased in the first place, otherwise it is just an open question on fact. I want a conclusion out of this from the Minister, and I think I am entitled to it.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member has asked the question. He can queer his own pitch by saying what he said, but then the whole question will be ruled out. I am being very generous in allowing the Minister to comment on the first part.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister does not duck anything, and certainly will not duck anything from that particular member.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You ruled that in; you ruled what I said out, which actually underscored what I said in the first place. My real point is that yesterday’s quote and today’s quote are from the same press conference, by two different reporters, but the import is identical. You allowed the Prime Minister yesterday to refer that question to Margaret Wilson, whom she knew was not here. So it came back to the person answering today. This circuitous route towards democratic accountability is a disgrace, and we do not wish to put up with it. I am asking, fairly, why she could not answer yesterday the question of the same import today. The answer seems to be, she is not prepared to answer either day. That is why he is answering.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I said yesterday—speaking now as Deputy Prime Minister—the Prime Minister did not find in the transcript of the press conference the quote that was used yesterday. That quote certainly referred to a statement made by the Attorney-General, therefore the question was referred. The quotation today was included in the transcript of the press conference. The Prime Minister will not duck anything from that member. She is prepared to meet him anywhere, anytime, except at a Courtenay Place bar in the early hours of the morning. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am dealing with a point of order. There is nothing for me to rule on at this particular point. The comment made by the Deputy Prime Minister was not insulting; just merely made a statement. It certainly did not reflect on any other member of this House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The fact is that yesterday that was not the logic that you accepted for the reference onwards. The logic you accepted yesterday was that seeing as Margaret Wilson had also made the statement and, she being responsible for these issues, she should answer it. That is what you said yesterday. Now today we find out that although there was no denial for a whole month from the Prime Minister as to the propriety of that reporting as to her comments, it now is an issue. That is a disgraceful abuse of this Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER: No, it is not because, in fact, I did not say that yesterday. I said it is up to the Government to determine who answers the question. It is not up to me. Supplementary question the Hon Bill English—did he have one?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is my turn, then; I am on my feet.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has had two. Mr English has had one.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With respect, he is sitting down, and I am standing, and every precedent says that you should ask me.

Mr SPEAKER: I am now finished with the member. He may leave the Chamber. I am not having that constant—[Interruption] I asked because the member had originally stood when it was his turn to ask a question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber.Withdrawal from Chamber

Mr SPEAKER: I am now calling the Hon Bill English. [Interruption] The member did stand before, and I called him.

Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it now in order in this House for a member to be able to get a question at question time when he is sitting on his bum as opposed to a member who is on his feet and seeking the call? In this particular case Mr English was still sitting down. Mr Peters was standing up, and you have thrown him out of the House because he was exercising his parliamentary responsibility to question the Government about what is happening. The Government may not like it, and other Government members may not like it either, but he is entitled to the call if he is the only one standing up—surely. Please rule.

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member does not recollect accurately at all. Mr Peters asked the first supplementary question. Mr English asked the second supplementary question. Mr Peters asked the third supplementary question, and at the conclusion of that, during it, the Hon Bill English stood up. I automatically assumed he was next. As far as I am concerned I did not throw the member out of the Chamber for raising a point of order; I threw him out because he is defying the Chair and everyone in this House knows it.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened to your recollection of events, which I have to say does not concur exactly with mine. I recall seeking the call only once, and it is unfortunate, perhaps, if the consequences of that are that Mr Peters ended up challenging the Chair. So in his defence I would say that I share Mr Peters’ understanding that I had sought the call only once, and did not actually seek the call a second time.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you.

Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I really appreciate the statement from the leader of the National Party. As I understand it, what he just said is that he was not seeking the call. Therefore it was perfectly appropriate for Mr Peters to be on his feet and to seek the call—which is what he was doing, and for which you have ejected him. Now we have Mr English supporting Mr Peters’ approach. We are very concerned about the way in which you are conducting question time.

Mr SPEAKER: Let me just say that I did not eject Mr Peters for raising Points of Order
; he has raised so many, and I have heard them all. I ejected him for being rude to me, which is not acceptable in this House.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether, later in the day, you might be able to look at the transcript, the Hansard, of the proceedings around this particular question. I think that tempers certainly do become a little bit frayed when answers come from Ministers that are generally well outside the requirements of answers, as set down in the Standing Orders. In particular, Mr Peters would have had some justification for being a little hot under the collar at the earlier response by the Acting Prime Minister, Dr Michael Cullen, to the part of his question that you had actually ruled out of order.

Those sorts of responses from Ministers do lead to disorder in the House. I think it is very unfortunate that Mr Peters has found himself getting so frustrated that some of his frustration has been vented as disrespect for the Chair. There is no disagreement with your decision, but I think it worthy of your time to have a look at the Hansard and perhaps give some Government Ministers an instruction that they are as much responsible for disorder occurring in the House, because of their answers, as is any other activity that might come from this side of the House.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Speaking to the point of order, I say that I have answered every question addressed to me today directly. You ruled out of order, as I understood it, a reference to the Prime Minister being scared. The first part of the question referred to ducking the question. You said that the first part of the question could be answered, and that is the part I answered, absolutely directly.

Mr SPEAKER: That is absolutely correct. I want to say that as far as I am concerned Dr Cullen has answered questions directly when he has been asked them today. As everyone knows, I did not ask Mr Peters to leave because of that. I thank Mr Brownlee for the comments he made inside his point of order.

Questions for Oral Answer
Health and Safety—Workplaces

7. DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) to the Minister for ACC: What action is ACC taking to implement improved health and safety provisions in workplaces?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC): I had great pleasure recently in launching the first-ever training programme for elected workplace health and safety representatives. The Accident Compensation Corporation has developed this programme in partnership with the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. The Accident Compensation Corporation and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions aim to train 5,000 health and safety representatives during the next 12 months. This initiative will play an important role in reducing the toll of workplace injuries.

Question interrupted.

Questions for Oral Answer
Question No. 4 to Minister

RON MARK (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been sitting here, reflecting upon the proceedings this afternoon. I am going to ask you to note that at this point all the New Zealand First members are vacating the Chamber. I want you to consider that we are consistently running into this problem where tempers become frayed and frustrations rise, to the point where people object, possibly do challenge you on occasion, and do make statements that are unparliamentary. All of that has its root in this question time being turned into a sham by Ministers who refuse to answer questions, who duck issues, and who shuffle questions from one side to the other. I want you to reflect on that. I know it is difficult for a Speaker to make a presidential ruling, but I think we are getting to the stage where outside, on the airwaves, people are looking at question time as being an absolute farce.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I have to say that members on this side of the House have spent a considerable amount of time becoming increasingly concerned about the rudeness of Mr Peters, day after day, when raising Points of Order. We have seen today other members of the Opposition, Mr Prebble, Mr Brownlee, and Mr English I think, but I cannot remember, raising Points of Order that, even if they were ruled against, were raised properly with you and in an appropriate manner. It is intolerable that you are subject, day after day, to yelling from Mr Peters, to insults, to refusals to obey your orders, and to interjections carrying on whenever you are giving rulings. He cannot, on that basis, claim that answers were not given. As the Speaker has already ruled, I gave direct answers to every question that Mr Peters raised.

Mr SPEAKER: I will allow just one final comment on this point of order.

PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First): At least twice today—it might be more than twice—you have asked Mr Peters to withdraw and apologise, and he has adhered to every request you have made along those lines. Question No. 6 relates to an issue that is of particular concern to many people, and specifically to members of New Zealand First. Mr Peters was going to ask four supplementary questions on this issue, and you effectively curtailed that. I would ask you to allow Mr Peters back into the Chamber because he stood his ground firmly. You might have thought Mr English was going to take a call. Mr English has now admitted that he was not going to take a call. Mr Peters stood his ground firmly, to say that he wanted the call for a third supplementary question and he would have taken a fourth supplementary question.

Mr SPEAKER: Mr Peters would have been given five supplementary questions if he had wanted them because it is still within his allocation, and I would have done so. He was not ejected for that, at all. He was ejected for being rude to the Chair, which he has been constantly, over the past few weeks. I have heard that point of order now.

PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First): Could you please clarify what exactly he said that was rude? I can understand that he was frustrated, because he stood his ground—

Mr SPEAKER: I keep a record of each day’s question time. I would be able to point out to the member occasions here, here, here, and here. It is obvious to most members of the House.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, while Mr Mark is still here. In fact, three members of New Zealand First are here, so it is a bit of an odd walk-out .I was listening to Mr Mark, and I think he picked his words with care, but I want an assurance from him that those remarks that he was making were not a reflection on the Speaker. If he is walking out because he does not find question time worthwhile, that is his right, but if he is walking out as a reflection on the Speaker, that is a reflection on the whole House. I think you should clarify that matter with him because otherwise he should walk out for a long period of time.

Mr SPEAKER: It is up to members as to why they withdraw from the House. I am taking it that they have made a decision. They do not want to be here and that is their business. I hope that it is not a reflection on me. Mr Mark indicates that it is not and I accept his word.

Questions for Oral Answer
Question No. 7 to Minister

Question resumed.

Dianne Yates: What other initiatives have the Government introduced to reduce workplace injury rates?

Hon RUTH DYSON: There is no doubt that more effective accident compensation legislation that emphasises injury prevention is playing a significant part, complemented by modern industrial relations legislation that is more conducive to good health and safety. My expectation is that injury rates will continue to improve over time, with prevention measures further enhanced by the Government’s changes to the health and safety legislation and implementation of the New Zealand Injury Prevention Strategy.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Given that in 1998-99 there were fewer than 25,000 moderate to severe workplace injuries and that under the Labour Government that figure has risen to over 30,000 per year, with that poor record to date, why should we believe the latest interventions are likely to be successful?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I am very reluctant to ever use a year-by-year change in figures as a basis of a trend, but I will give the member some better news than he is able to report to the House in terms of both new and ongoing claims numbers. In 1997-98, the figure for new claims was 73 and for the ongoing claims, 356. In the following year, there were 53 new claims and 296 ongoing claims, compared to, under this Government in 2000-01, 25 new claims in that year and 26 in the following year, and 281 and 285 ongoing claims respectively. That is a significant decrease in claim numbers.

Lynne Pillay: How have employers benefited from the Accident Compensation Corporation’s investment in numerous workplace initiatives?

Hon RUTH DYSON: If I may use the past year as an example, employers who were assessed as having a safe workplace in terms of their practices received levy discounts totalling $17 million.

Sue Bradford: When will the Government accept that sawmill workers in Whakatane injured by long-term exposure to pentachlorophenols and other solvents are entitled to accident compensation?

Hon RUTH DYSON: A lot of work is going into detailed consideration and support of the claimants throughout that process, but in terms of the specifics of the question, the only way individual claimants can have their claims accepted is if they meet the criteria of the legislation.

Gordon Copeland: Is the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions being funded through accident compensation employer levies to provide the workplace health and safety officers to which she referred, and, if so, is funding also being provided to private training providers to assist employers who choose not to use the Council of Trade Unions service; if not, why not?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The funding for that is part of the overall injury prevention account. In answer to the second part of the question: yes, other organisations have applied. None have yet been accepted but I know that the Employers and Manufacturers Association is one that is getting very close to finalising its contract negotiations for the provision of health and safety training.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister briefly outline how she—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Peter Brown: What is this member talking about?

Rodney Hide: I thought you walked out.

Mr SPEAKER: Mr Hide, you do not know how lucky you are. There is not to be one more word from you this question time while questions are being asked—not one.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister briefly outline how she believes that employers should handle “stress”, because it is not defined in the Act, it is not confined to the workplace, and the issue is causing some huge concern amongst genuine employers?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I would happily do that if it were covered under my portfolio, but I regret that that question should appropriately be directed to the Minister of Labour. [Interruption]

Phil Heatley: There has been a mass “walk-in”, Mr Speaker!

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I really think it would be helpful if the Green Party were to give the New Zealand First Party a lesson on how to do a walk-out.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need this continued. Supplementary question, Dr Paul Hutchison.

Dr Paul Hutchison168Dr Paul Hutchison: Can the Minister give the precise cost of her interventions; if not, why not?

Hon RUTH DYSON: If the member is referring to the precise cost and effectiveness of our injury prevention programmes, the answer is “Yes”. In order to do that, and to save the House precious time, I would be happy to foreshadow the tabling of six pages of exactly that information.

Mr SPEAKER: A request has been made to table that information. Is there any objection?

Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Questions for Oral Answer
Offence Notices—Quotas

8. Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) to the Minister of Police: Do the police have a national policy on traffic ticket quotas?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police): No. However, police do set performance standards to enforce the law. I am advised that when patrol staff are tasked with policing our roads, it is not unreasonable to expect them to enforce the law—especially given that one in 12 drivers does not wear seat belts, and one in 10 drives at speed. Drivers actually need to break the law to get a ticket.

Dr Muriel Newman: Does the Minister realise that, while police are busy fulfilling his performance standards by issuing a quota of one traffic ticket per hour to largely law-abiding citizens, criminals are busy converting four cars and committing five violent crimes, six drug offences, seven burglaries, and 15 thefts—a total of 50 recorded crimes an hour—and why does he not focus the police on catching real criminals and reducing real crime, instead?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Because this Parliament has said that people who break road rules and laws should be apprehended.

Russell Fairbrother: Why do police enforce speed limits so vigorously?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Police have implemented a policy to strictly enforce speed limits 10 kilometres over the limit. In Victoria, Australia, it is as low as 3 kilometres over the limit. That is because people involved in a crash at 120 kilometres an hour are twice as likely to die than they would be if a car was travelling at 100 kilometres an hour. Also, a child hit by a car travelling 70 kilometres per hour has a 96 percent of chance of dying, compared with a child hit at 50 kilometres an hour, who has a 40 percent chance of surviving.

Richard Worth: If there is no quota for traffic tickets, why is it the case that the Police’s annual statement of intent sets a goal of issuing between 275,000 and 325,000 tickets in 2003-04—or is there some difference between a quota and a goal?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I think that the member must realise that the police cannot give anyone a ticket unless they break the law. The police are getting tough because we want the road toll to come down.

Hon Peter Dunne: Is the Minister aware of, and does he condone, the informal internal police practice known as the attitude test, whereby drivers who express some disappointment at being detained at the side of the road are deliberately held for up to 15 minutes while police officers decide whether to give them a ticket, and then let them go, and how does he consider that that contributes to both road safety and positive police community relationships?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I do not agree that it does help those things at all. If the member knows of any cases like that, he should report them to the Commissioner of Police.

Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware that in some communities there is a concern that the quota system is prohibiting some members of the public from assisting police officers when they really need help in dealing with violent criminals?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I believe that all New Zealanders should make sure that they do not speed so that they do not kill people, that they wear seatbelts, that they do not drink when they drive, and that they avoid all other traffic offences, so that we can have a better New Zealand.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the Minister’s answer, but he did not answer the question I asked.

Mr SPEAKER: I thought the Minister addressed the question very specifically.

Dr Muriel Newman: What does the Minister say to the mothers caught by armies of police as they drive their kids to school, who get fined for forgetting to put their drivers’ licences in their dressing-gown pockets, only to arrive back home to find their house burgled, with a 19-hour wait for the police to get there?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The police enforce the law as they see it. If people choose to drive without a licence when taking their children to school they should be very careful indeed. Taking kids to school is an important job, and it should be done safely.

Questions for Oral Answer
Justice—Information

9. TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Associate Minister of Justice: What progress has been made in co-ordinating and managing justice sector information?

Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice): Very good progress. Today I am launching a new justice sector information strategy for the next 3 years, which represents the cumulative efforts of all those within the justice sector, such as the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Courts, Police, and the Department of Corrections, to ensure improvements in the quality of information across this sector, and to address those areas of information that require improvement. It will also result in better justice information for the whole community.

Tim Barnett: What events have led to the need for a justice sector strategy?

Hon RICK BARKER: After 30 years of service, the law enforcement system, the Wanganui computer, has outlived its useful life, and a decision has been taken to replace it with a number of departmental systems, instead of a single system. That means that, although we would have a cheaper system in total in terms of hardware, and the opportunity to better tailor systems to the individual needs of each department, there would be a possible loss of integration across the sector. That strategy ensures that that does not happen.

Deborah Coddington: In the light of the Minister’s answer, can we now take it that this Government’s policy is to do nothing about violent crime, which has risen by 13.3 percent since the election, and that that does not matter, because the bureaucrats are improving their filing skills—what is it going to be: getting tough on violent crime or having better performing bureaucrats?

Hon RICK BARKER: That is a very interesting question, and also a bit facetious. Of course, the Government is concerned about violent crime, and this Government is committed to doing everything it can to reduce that. We are also concerned to ensure that we have good records.

Nandor Tanczos: What consideration did the Minister give to directing the justice sector to investigate the use of non-proprietary justice sector information systems, given the international reputation that non-proprietary software has for cost-effectiveness, stability, security, and for being easy to manage?

Hon RICK BARKER: No instruction was given to the justice sector to that effect, but it is interesting to note that a number of other countries are looking at using non-proprietary systems. The attributes that the member raises about the systems’ qualities are true, but they are also much more complicated to use. That is one of the issues that we have to address in the future.

Questions for Oral Answer
Paediatric Neurologists—Nationwide Service

10. Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) to the Minister of Health: Why, 5 years after the National Review of Paediatric Specialty Services, does New Zealand still only have three paediatric neurologists and no nationwide integrated service?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): Contrary to the member’s assertion in her question, the first time a specialist neurology service was proposed was in 1994-95, according to Dr Nick Baker, the President of the Paediatric Society. Until the national review of paediatric services, nothing was done for 4 years. On becoming the Government, our first priority was to establish a nationwide oncology and metabolics service for children, which were both recommendations from the review. Work is now proceeding rapidly on an integrated paediatric neurology service.

Dr Lynda Scott: Why are New Zealand children with complex seizures, cancer, and other complex neurological conditions being subject to huge delays in obtaining specialist assessment because this Government has failed to act on any of the recommendations of the paediatric specialist services review; unlike Bill English—not this Government but Bill English—who, when he was Minister, immediately funded and established the nationwide paediatric oncology service.

Hon ANNETTE KING: The member’s memory is poor. In 2000 the paediatric oncology service started to be funded. In fact, in the review it said there ought to be one oncology service in New Zealand based at Starship Hospital. I rejected that and said there needed to be oncology services in Wellington, Christchurch, and Auckland. That is what happened. However, the establishment of paediatric neurology has been slower; the reason, as Dr Jan White said this morning, is not funding, it is human resource shortage.

Steve Chadwick: What are some of the constraints in the provision of nationwide integrated paediatric neurology services, other than those mentioned by Jan?

Hon ANNETTE KING: One of the first things that needed to happen was the establishment of the guidelines for such an integrated service. I would like the House to note that it took 5 years from 1995 to 2000 to draw up the guidelines for paediatric oncology—that has been one of the constraints. There is also an international shortage of paediatric neurologists. The Auckland District Health Board has been advertising for 1 year to fill a vacancy.

Heather Roy: In relation to the Paediatric Society’s tertiary services review, which declared that all children should have access to the same level of specialised paediatric services as adult patients have to specialised adult services, why is she still overseeing a near crisis, after 4 years in the job; or is Dr Wilson, a paediatrician at Wellington Hospital, correct in saying that: “Annette King has finally admitted that, to her, children’s health needs are not as important as adult health needs.”?

Hon ANNETTE KING: That is incorrect. This Minister has been very committed to children health services. The world child framework has proceeded very fast under this Government, including funding to go with it, the establishment of paediatric oncology and the metabolic service. However, I do believe we can do more for children in New Zealand, and we are committed to that.

Sue Kedgley: Given the acute shortage of paediatric neurologists and lack of any integrated service, how is the health service coping with the increase in reported childhood autism cases in New Zealand, and does the ministry have an integrated nationwide service for diagnosing and treating autism?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I am unable to answer that question. I would bow to my colleague, the Minister for Disability Issues, who has done considerable work on autism. If I remember correctly, there is an autism service—one service for all children. I would prefer that the Minister for Disability Issues was able to give the member a fuller answer on that.

Judy Turner: Can the Minister confirm whether the Ministry of Health is committed to providing funding to paediatric speciality services for children suffering with epilepsy, in terms of both support and education programmes to promote epilepsy awareness, in the same way as is done with diabetes and asthma education awareness; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Each district health board now is funded for services that they are to provide within their districts. District health boards have the ability to be able to fund education services, not only for epilepsy but also for a whole range of conditions that face children and adults. That is where the decision needs to be made.

Dr Lynda Scott: Why are child health experts warning that this specialist service is on the verge of collapse, with two and a half specialists doing the work of eight, with a child specialist having to travel to Auckland from Christchurch, placing intolerable workload pressure on him so that he will burn out, with children in Wellington, Otago, and Northland having very little access to service; and if the Ministry of Health’s chief paediatric adviser says the service should be organised nationally, when will she show some leadership and ensure this happens, rather than passing the buck to the 21 district health boards?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I certainly have not passed the buck to 21 district health boards. One of the reasons that Dr Jan White is leading this work is that it is the lead district health board pulling together the work for all of New Zealand so there will be an integrated service. I am pleased that this progress is being made under this Government. After all, I had pointed out it was first raised in 1994, and neglected for 6 years under a National Government.

Dr Lynda Scott: Is it not a ridiculous situation, when there is clearly a pressing need for New Zealand children to get equal access through a nationwide service contract, that she is insisting on 21 district health boards sorting out the problem, when all that the 21 district health boards are responsible for and funded for is their local areas only; and when will she act to provide New Zealand children with adequate and equal access across New Zealand?

Mr SPEAKER: That question was too long; there are three parts to it. The Hon Annette King can answer two of them.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I will say that the member is wrong on practically everything she said.

Questions for Oral Answer
Question No.11 to Minister

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Hon Brian Donnelly, he has referred me to the fact that the name of the school should be Arorangi. If the Minister himself had any difficulty with that particular word, he will have to explain that, but I will allow him to change the word to Arorangi.

Questions for Oral Answer
Arorangi School—Kura Kaupapa Funding

11. Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) to the Minister of Education: Why has he agreed that Arorangi School and Te Kura Kaupapa Motuhake o Tawhiuau will not have to repay the $71,000 accidentally paid to them by the Ministry of Education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) on behalf of the Minister of Education: The school was given incorrect advice by the Ministry of Education about a satellite arrangement, for which the ministry has apologised to both schools. The money was paid out by the ministry in good faith, and used by the schools to pay staff at Arorangi for the first term of this year. In light of the misunderstandings surrounding this arrangement, the ministry recommended the money not be recovered, and I agree with that view.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Is it not true that ministry officials were encouraged by his office on his behalf to facilitate some sort of satellite arrangement to enable Arorangi School, a private school, to achieve its ends?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have no knowledge of any encouragement, but I would point out that, as the member as just said, this is a private school. It is a school that does not have the same kaupapa as the kura. The way that satellite arrangements are usually put together is that the philosophy, the language, the pedagogy, and the kaupapa of the schools do match. That is why satellite arrangements are put together. That is not true in the case of those two schools.

Jill Pettis: Why did the Minister refuse a request from Arorangi School to integrate into the State system?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: With a declining population, and therefore falling rolls, Tokoroa has an oversupply of classrooms in primary schools—that is, an excess of 14. In the light of this, the taxpayer does not need to provide further places or classrooms. Kinleith Mill has also announced further restructuring and loss of jobs in the area. I encouraged the school to satellite with another local school, but in the event of other schools in the area not being interested, such an arrangement was not put in place.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Why did the Minister’s office send an email in late January to the Hamilton office of the Ministry of Education stating: “Trevor has sympathy for this school and would like us to see if we can facilitate some sort of satelliting.”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Once again, I cannot go over the details of the email because I do not have that information with me. However, if the member has listened to my answers on behalf of the Minister of Education so far he will have heard that advice was given about satellite arrangements. It was given in good faith, and that is why the $71,000 is not being asked to be recovered. However, the member will know that the encouragement around a satellite arrangement was with schools that should have a similar way of teaching, a similar programme, and a similar language. That is how those arrangements are put in place. In this case that would have not have resulted. They are quite different schools.

Hon Brian Donnelly: In terms of his answers to questions already given, and an agreement that under the legislation it would have been against the law under these circumstances for the Minister to have accorded this particular school integration status with the resources that went with it, surely this was simply a mechanism of getting around the Act; can the Minister confirm that?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No, I cannot, because as the member knows from listening to the answers that I have provided, this was a case of a private school obviously seeking to find an arrangement to keep itself in existence. Advice was given in good faith, and in good faith the $71,000 is not being required to be paid back, but this private school has a very different way of going about teaching, and therefore could not have got into a satellite arrangement with the school. Therefore, it has a choice. As a private school it gets some money from the State, as the member knows, and the rest needs to come through fees paid by parents. If it wishes to continue, then it has that choice.

Questions for Oral Answer
Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Agricultural Levy

12. Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) to the Minister of Agriculture: Will the Government legislate to enforce the collection of the agricultural greenhouse gas emissions research levy; if so, what is the timetable for such legislation?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Acting Minister of Agriculture): Yes, by the middle of next year.

Hon David Carter: How can the Minister argue that this is a levy and not a tax when yesterday in this House when he was asked how the Government proposed to deal with people who refused to pay the tax he said: “We would do, no doubt, exactly the same as we do with people who refuse to pay their income tax and other taxes.”?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The reason that it is a levy is that it is being collected for a specific purpose. It will not go near the consolidated account. In trying to work out whether to call it a levy or a tax, my preference is to call it an investment.

Clayton Cosgrove: Could the Minister outline the reasons for the Government’s decision to impose a small levy on farmers for research into agricultural greenhouse gas?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The emissions are waste products, and reducing those will increase animal weight and growth. The results from the research will benefit farmers, and farmers have to expect to pay for that as the editorial in this week’s Straight Furrow, the publication of Federated Farmers, agrees.

Dail Jones: How can there be any benefit to New Zealand farmers under this Kyoto Protocol, bearing in mind that the USA and the Russian Federation have not yet ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and while they do not it will never come into effect internationally?

Hon PETE HODGSON: It is true that if the Kyoto Protocol does not come into effect internationally, then it will have no effect.

Gerrard Eckhoff: If the Government is so concerned about methane emissions in New Zealand, why will the Government not include landfills in this new tax or levy as they are the second biggest emitters of methane?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Because the Kyoto Protocol is constructed around the idea of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Minister think of any sector of the New Zealand economy that is more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than agriculture, and, in addition to climate protection in the future, what other benefits to farmers does he expect from the research that will be funded by the levy?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am sure that there is no sector more at risk from climate change than our agricultural sector. I am sure of that. I am also sure there is no sector that has been alleviated of a tax to the extent that this sector has.

Hon David Carter: Is the Minister genuine about consultation with farmers, and why has he instructed his officials and all Labour Party politicians not to attend any of the numerous public meetings being held to discuss this stupid tax?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I have had, I think, two, or perhaps three, invitations now, most of them at about 5 minutes’ notice, so I have had to decline them. But in all cases I have said that I am prepared—and I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture feels similarly—to attend meetings where there is an opportunity for further discussion. We did have some consultation last year. There were 49 meetings, and 11 of them were farmer only.

Hon David Carter: Will any of the 52 Labour members of Parliament attend the meetings being held in Masterton tomorrow evening or in Hamilton on Monday evening—any of them?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am not entirely sure, but the Minister of Health said she is busy, and the Minister responsible for Social Development and Employment said he would go to a meeting in Palmerston North if one is held there. I guess they will all make up their own minds.

Questions for Oral Answer
Question No. 7 to Minister

PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a question of the Minister for ACC about the effect of workplace stress—an Accident Compensation Corporation opinion. She referred me to the Minister of Labour—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will please be seated. The member has a slot in the general debate and he can certainly talk about the matter then. It is a debating issue, not a point of order.

Peter Brown: I am asking you to reflect on our concern—

Mr SPEAKER: I have reflected often on this matter. All I can say is that question time in this Parliament is a very vigorous and open one, and it flows very smoothly. Occasionally, we do have too many Points of Order
. However, the matter is a debating one, and the member can raise it in the general debate.

End of Questions for Oral Answer

(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

© Scoop Media