( Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing. )

Thursday, 9 August 2007

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

State Services Commissioner—Investigation into Ministry for the Environment Appointment

1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of State Services: Does she have confidence in Dr Mark Prebble’s investigation into the Public Service recruitment and employment of Madeleine Setchell; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): Yes, I do.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware of a statement by Dr Prebble last Friday, explaining why the article he published in the Dominion Post omitted the fact that David Benson-Pope had made comments, where Dr Prebble states: “The reason why I didn’t mention it is it didn’t at the time; it wasn’t the critical issue.”?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, I am.

Hon Bill English: So which of Dr Prebble’s explanations does the Minister now believe: his explanation that he omitted that information because “I forgot”, or his explanation as given on Morning Report that “The reason why I didn’t mention it is because it … wasn’t the critical issue.”?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I believe it is possible for both those statements to be correct.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister believe that anyone else would regard those statements as both being right, where Dr Prebble gave as one explanation for leaving the information out that he “forgot”, and gave another explanation where he said he left the information out because it was not a “critical issue”—in fact, that he had made the judgment that it did not matter enough to put it in the article?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, it is true that some may believe that Dr Prebble set out to mislead the public of New Zealand. I do not believe that.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister believe that Dr Prebble left the information out because “it wasn’t the critical issue.”?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I take Dr Prebble’s word for what he said, and said publicly—that he forgot. He also said that he did not—[Interruption]

Hon Bill English: How can the Public Service have confidence in an inquiry led by Dr Prebble, where he is investigating the facts, as he says, and coming to it with an open mind, when his own statements have contradicted each other—on the one hand he said he “forgot” to put it in, and on the other hand he said that he did not put it in because it was not “the critical issue”—how can the Public Service have confidence in an inquiry led by Dr Prebble, when one of the key elements of that inquiry is Dr Prebble’s contradictory statements?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I can have confidence because Dr Prebble has asked Mr Don Hunn to investigate independently the facts of this matter—the facts of this matter. He did that after seeking advice from the Solicitor-General. Dr Prebble has now added Mr Don Hunn to that inquiry. Mr Hunn has been brought in to look at the facts.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that that is not Dr Prebble’s view, because in this interview he says that he is going to gather the facts, saying: “I am entering into this process with an open mind, knowing that I don’t know all the facts, and I know that others don’t know all the facts.”; who is gathering the facts: Dr Prebble, who has given two contradictory versions of why he left a vital piece of information out of a published article, or Don Hunn, who is part of the inquiry that is still legally the responsibility of Dr Prebble?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Mr Don Hunn is investigating the facts. Under the State Sector Act the facts are being investigated.

Hon Bill English: Who will interview Dr Prebble about his contradictory statements over why he left critical information out of a published article; will it be the legally responsible lead investigator, Dr Prebble, or will it be Mr Hunn?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The facts of this case will be investigated by Mr Don Hunn, and, in looking at the facts, he will no doubt interview everybody whom it is appropriate to interview.

Hon Bill English: In this inquiry that 30,000 civil servants are meant to regard as credible, will it be the case that one of the appointed reviewers, Mr Don Hunn, will have to interview extensively the chief reviewer, Mr Mark Prebble, to ascertain the truthfulness of Mr Prebble’s statements?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Mr Don Hunn has been given the job of investigating the facts of this case, and no matter how Mr English wants to portray it and try to denigrate public servants, it will be done in a proper manner—as one would expect from a man of Mr Don Hunn’s calibre. I do not believe that there are many people in New Zealand—although I cannot account for some in the Opposition—who would find a problem with regard to a man who has had a long service in the Public Service and is considered to be the father of the State Service Commission, having been one of the people who set it up. I believe he is the right person, on the advice of the Solicitor-General, to help in this inquiry.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister think that Dr Prebble may be making rather too many mistakes for a senior and very experienced public servant, given his failure in 2003 to release critical documents that reflected badly on the Government in relation to the “corngate” incident, despite instructions that everything should be released?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The Government has been satisfied with the work of the State Services Commissioner. However, I have to say that everybody makes mistakes, and, as has been pointed out already this week, it is regrettable that Dr Prebble did forget an important piece of information. But I think it would unfair to say that in a lifetime of public service one would judge that person on one or two errors.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the statement by Mr Mark Prebble that he did not forget to release the document—

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

Immigration Act—Migrant Integration

2. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Does the rewrite of the Immigration Act introduced yesterday include measures to ensure that would-be migrants are willing and able to integrate with the rest of society; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): The Government shares the member’s determination that migrants should be willing and able to integrate into New Zealand society. We already support that through our settlement strategy and a range of policies that allow us to choose those migrants who can best contribute to New Zealand.

Peter Brown: Has the Minister read any reports regarding the level of public support for the introduction of integration testing for migrants, such as the poll conducted by the New Zealand Herald last week, which overwhelmingly supported such a measure; and will the Government now consider a civics education scheme, as suggested by New Zealand First?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes, I am well aware of that poll. I would warrant that of those who said that, yes, they would like such a test, many would disagree on the particular questions they would like included in it. The experience of other countries, some not far from here, is that such tests are difficult to design and even more difficult to administer.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: What is the Government doing to support migrants to integrate into New Zealand society?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Government is undertaking a range of actions in partnership with migrants, around the principle that integration is a two-way street. We inform migrants before they arrive here about living in New Zealand, and we follow up that information after they get here with more localised information. We have set up settlement support coordinators throughout the country for migrants to get advice from, and to help migrants learn the ropes of Kiwi society. We are working with local and non-governmental agencies, businesses, and communities all around New Zealand to improve their responsiveness, in turn, to new migrant communities.

Keith Locke: Does the Minister agree that the Australian Government’s mistreatment of Dr Haneef shows the need for more transparency in immigration cases; and does he agree that the Minister’s Immigration Bill, by making secret, or classifying, a greater array of evidence in immigration cases, and by withholding that information from the lawyers for the affected party, is a recipe for more mistakes and more denial of due process and natural justice?

Madam SPEAKER: I am just considering the issue of ministerial responsibility. Would the Minister address the question in terms of his responsibility.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have no responsibility for the first part of the question, and, indeed, would not comment on the internal politics of a friendly country. In respect of the second part, it seems to me that the more information, within bounds, that is available on a prospective migrant, the better the chance that an appropriate and sensible decision will be made about the person’s potential entry into New Zealand.

Peter Brown: Noting the answer given to my colleague Mr Choudhary, did the findings in the Labour Department report Skilled Migrants in New Zealand: A Study of Settlement Outcomes come as a surprise to the Minister, given that it indicates that more than 60 percent of migrants have had no contact with an immigration officer since their arrival, and that barely 60 percent of them rated the information provided by the Immigration Service as even useful; noting those findings, will he now give further consideration to some sort of formal civics education system?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Some important statistics about new migrant settlement include the following: skilled migrants are less than half as likely as a New Zealand - born person to be drawing a benefit or other form of social welfare; over 85 percent of employers of migrants are either “happy” or “very happy” with the outcome; and over 96 percent of migrant surveys state that migrants are either “happy” or “very happy” to be in New Zealand. I think those statistics are compelling evidence that our migration system is working, and although not perfect, as a result of this bill it will be made even better.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: What other reports has the Minister seen on settlement?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees regional representative has recently highly praised our settlement and integration approach, saying he was impressed by “the clear commitment held by all actors to maintaining the high standards for which New Zealand is known internationally.” That is but one of a number of very positive responses to the Government’s call to action for settlement, which has been well received since its launch on 23 July this year.

Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware that several European countries have introduced civics education programmes, for want of a better term, and that Australia is looking at the idea with some seriousness, and that those countries compile various questions; surely, if other countries can do it, it cannot be too difficult for New Zealand to do?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have never said that I am opposed to the idea of civics education; indeed, our settlement programme already includes elements of that, as does our education system. But the complexity here, which has been amply demonstrated in other countries, is that although people might agree there should be a list of questions for incoming migrants, they disagree on what those questions should be. As an Aucklander, I would hope that new migrants would support the Blues. That member might disagree with that one.

State Services Commission—Briefing on Ministry for the Environment Appointment

3. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of State Services: Does she stand by the briefing from the State Services Commission on issues surrounding an employment decision at the Ministry for the Environment, which she released on 20 July 2007; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): Since the 20 July briefing note was provided, both the State Services Commissioner and the Deputy State Services Commissioner have said they want further information on the handling of the employment issue relating to Ms Setchell. That is why there is now an investigation under the State Sector Act 1988.

Gerry Brownlee: What concerns, if any, does she have that a key piece of information was withheld from Iain Rennie by not only the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment but also the State Services Commissioner himself, Dr Mark Prebble?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I expressed concern yesterday and said I was disappointed that Dr Prebble had forgotten to pass that information on, first of all, to Mr Rennie.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister is required, in answering questions in Parliament, to answer correctly to the best of her ability. I quoted directly from a transcript of Dr Prebble’s interview with Morning Report where he does not say he forgot, he says he did not regard it as the critical issue. In that respect, and in order to assist the Minister so that she is clear that Dr Prebble did not say he forgot, he just said he thought he would not, I seek leave to table the transcript of his interview with Geoff Robinson on Morning Report.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection. I would also note—ruling on the point of order—that that is obviously a debatable matter.

Gerry Brownlee: What confidence should the New Zealand public have in Dr Mark Prebble, who withheld key information from the first investigation into the communication manager’s employment, and is now conducting the second—and supposedly more comprehensive—investigation, particularly when he was also the man who withheld crucial official information in the “corngate” issue?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I believe that the public can have confidence in the inquiry that is being undertaken—first of all, because Dr Prebble has asked Mr Don Hunn to be involved in the investigation. He wrote a letter to him, which I tabled, but I did discover later that, in fact, the letter was attached to the press release that Dr Prebble put out and obviously had not been read by the Opposition spokesperson on State services. If I could remind him, the letter to Mr Hunn says: “When you have completed the necessary investigation, I require you to provide me with a report on the following: the relevant facts, including the involvement of me or any State Service Commission staff, any assessment or comment you consider should be made in relation to the involvement of me or any State Service Commission staff, where any conflict of evidence arises your assessment of what the truth of the matter is.” That is in the letter to Mr Don Hunn written by Dr Prebble and released publicly.

Gerry Brownlee: When was the Minister first told that David Benson-Pope had expressed an opinion on the employment of Ms Setchell to Mr Logan?

Hon ANNETTE KING: If members could just wait one moment while I get the date when I was told—

Hon Bill English: Is this the Prime Minister’s department script?

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister is endeavouring to answer the question, as the member reminded the House before, in the best possible way. Would the Minister now address the question.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I try to be accurate in what I say. I have written down here the dates and times, and so on, that I was going to refer to. I will take the opportunity later to provide the answer, because I will not take the time of the House by looking now.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may choose to accept that as addressing the question, but if the Minister of State Services does not know what day she was made aware of the most crucial fact in this case, then that Minister does not deserve to hold the warrant.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: This seems to be a peculiarly inappropriate week for the Opposition to climb on a high horse about who can remember what when, about what was said. This week has been a week in which Mr Key cannot remember what he said about almost anything, and had various stories on everything. [Interruption] And they do not like it when they are reminded of that fact—they do not like it at all. The fact is—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: We will now hear the point of order in silence. Anyone who makes a comment will leave this Chamber. I could not hear what Dr Cullen was saying.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The fact is the Minister was seeking to consult her notes on a matter of detail. It is a pity that Mr Key did not take the chance to do so on a large number of occasions.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you consider that the Minister saying: “I will choose to answer this later.” is addressing the question?

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I agree. Yes, the Minister did address the question, and it was not a point of order. You were making an observation, which you are entitled to do, but not as a point of order.

Gerry Brownlee: When was the Minister told that David Benson-Pope had expressed an opinion on the employment of Madeleine Setchell to Mr Logan?

Hon ANNETTE KING: On 29 July.

Gerry Brownlee: Further to her response to oral questions yesterday, has she now asked Dr Mark Prebble whether he was telling the truth when he stated in the Dominion Post article that: “Ministers ought not be involved, and I understand the environment Minister David Benson-Pope was not involved”; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No.

KiwiSaver—Enrolments

4. SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on enrolments in the KiwiSaver scheme?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): The latest data is that the total number of enrolments received by the Inland Revenue Department has reached nearly 92,000. Treasury’s forecast was that 345,000 would have enrolled by the end of the first year—that is, by 30 June 2008—an average of just under 30,000 per month. Although some further opt-outs from the cohorts who have already enrolled will still occur, the final take-up for that cohort seems very likely to be running well ahead of the forecast, contrary to a number of reports.

Shane Jones: Has he seen any other reports on support for the scheme?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen a huge range of support for the scheme within the public arena and within this House. The one exception is the National Party, which simply cannot make up its mind. Indeed, I have in front of me a photograph of Mr Bill English, appropriately in Doubtful Sound, saying: “We will sit and watch KiwiSaver for a time.” So far the National members have voted against the original bill, the KiwiSaver Bill, voted against the extensions to KiwiSaver in the Budget legislation, and voted against the bill with the employer contributions, which is in front of the select committee.

Hon Peter Dunne: If the current rate of uptake continues to be ahead of the forecast and to be strong, will the Government in time give consideration to removing the voluntary opt-out provision of the scheme and making it a compulsory one for all New Zealanders?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. I think the compulsory opt-out provision is the best way to proceed. It does not raise further issues around the structure of New Zealand superannuation, which a fully compulsory scheme might. What it does mean is that we will have achieved a major shift in New Zealanders’ savings behaviour.

Question No. 3 to Minister

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In answer to the last supplementary question asked of the Minister to the previous question, the Minister told us that she first knew of David Benson-Pope’s expressing a view to Mr Logan about the employment of the new communications manager on 29 July. David Benson-Pope announced that to the House on 26 July and was out of his job on 27 July. Does the Minister want to correct her answer, or did she know about it a whole month earlier than that?

Madam SPEAKER: I will ask the Minister to reply, although that was not a point of order.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): My apologies, Madam Speaker. I thought—

Hon Bill English: Oh!

Hon ANNETTE KING: I thought this was a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, the Minister is right. There will be no further interruptions during a point of order. The member raised a matter; the Minister was trying to be helpful. We will hear the answer in silence.

Hon ANNETTE KING: My apologies. I thought the member had asked me when Mark Prebble had remembered that Hugh Logan had mentioned it to him. That was on 29 July.

Madam SPEAKER: The member’s original point of order was not a point of order. It was, in fact, an observation, and it is a debating matter. It is not actually a point of order. However, I let it go for the sake of obtaining clarification for the House. That has been given.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question was extremely specific, and it was asked of the Minister twice: on which date did she know? It may be that one can get up and give the sort of answer that skates around it, but that is deliberately misleading the House.

Madam SPEAKER: The member is again making a debating point, not a point of order.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a question of order, because, as you know, Madam Speaker, the Opposition is limited to a certain number of supplementary questions. It would clearly be unacceptable that those supplementary questions are used up by Ministers giving misleading answers in order to avoid actually answering questions. As my colleague has pointed out, we have had to use two supplementary questions to ask that particular question quite definitively. It was clearly stated and unambiguous; there was no doubt as to what it was about. The Minister has now created a situation where, by her having given a misleading answer, we lose the opportunity, because we are getting through our supplementary questions, to get her to answer the question that she was asked and still has not answered.

Madam SPEAKER: I understand the member’s point. I would point out also that when the Minister was attempting to answer that question the first time, there was an interruption. She then indicated that she wanted to give an accurate answer and, therefore, she would table it later. Then, when the question was asked again, she gave an answer. When it was then questioned as not being an accurate answer, she gave an explanation, which is why I allowed that explanation to be given even though it was not a point of order. So I think we are back at square one.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister’s explanation was that although I asked her twice very, very clearly about when she knew, she thought somehow that I wanted to know when Dr Prebble said that he knew. I do not know how one can get that out of a simple question like that. This Minister is avoiding answering an important question.

Madam SPEAKER: I will say this once more. The point the member raises is, of course, a point of debate or of discussion. Certainly, the member is entitled to criticise and comment, but it is not a point of order. That is the point I am making. I have been tolerant until we had clarification for the House, but the House has been interrupted on matters that are not valid points of order.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. How can one have any order in this House if, when a question is asked about a Minister’s own involvement in something, that Minister turns around and says he or she is giving an answer about someone else’s involvement? If Ministers are to treat question time like that, then we will have an enormous amount of disorder, simply because there is an entitlement for members to have their questions answered.

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. The member himself is in danger of creating disorder. The matter has, in fact, been clarified, and even though I have ruled that it was not a point of order, I did enable the Minister to clarify the point that the member has raised. We shall now move on.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, but if this is the same point of order, then I will be asking the member to leave the Chamber. I have ruled on this matter.

Gerry Brownlee: It will be your judgment, Madam Speaker, as to whether it is the same point of order. Have you now ruled that if we ask a very specific question and a Minister chooses to hear that in a way that does not relate at all to that question and chooses to give an answer that makes the Minister herself look quite ridiculous, are we supposed to just sit here and accept that? What is the point in having question time?

Madam SPEAKER: No, the point I have made, Mr Brownlee—and I will do this for the very last time—is that I have said that it was not a point of order. It was not a point of order. It was a matter of obvious importance, however, which is why I enabled the Minister to respond to it for the information of the House.

Election Advertising—Government Policy

5. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: Is it Government policy that issuing a press release, sending an email, or posting a letter should constitute publishing an election advertisement, if those documents disagree or agree with anything any political party is associated with; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: No.

Hon Bill English: If it is not Government policy that a person sending an email, posting a letter, or issuing a press release would be caught by the Electoral Finance Bill and become a “promoter”, then why is that in the bill put forward by the Government?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member, as usual, has missed the fact that other elements of the bill have to be read in conjunction with that definition within clause 4. The intention of the bill is quite clear. The kind of outrageous advertising on behalf of a political party, involving huge sums of money and not attributable, that was done by the Exclusive Brethren should not be allowed to happen in that kind of volume. The select committee will consider, of course, whether the exact wording of the bill meets the intentions in that regard.

Hon Bill English: Does that mean that the Minister of Justice does not understand his own bill, and that Labour, in its obsession with dealing to its critics in election year so that it has a free run at multimillion-dollar taxpayer-funded campaigns, does not know that it has cast a drift-net that catches all political criticism in election year, and covers almost any political opinion?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The net that has been cast is designed to catch predatory species that prey upon the political and democratic system in this country, as the Exclusive Brethren did last time—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Like the children’s lobby!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: —at one point a group that Dr Smith used to attack rather than cuddle up to and get kissed by, as he was at the last election. The select committee will consider whether the exact wording of the bill conforms to the intention in that respect. I have never seen a major bill come out of a select committee with the wording exactly the same as it was when it went in.

Hon Bill English: Why has the Government cast such a drift-net to catch the criticism of every group—ranging from the Littlies Lobby, to anti - child abuse campaigners, to teacher unions, to Greenpeace, to Amnesty International, to the ratepayers associations in any small town—that wants its voice to be heard in election year?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member may continue to promote that somewhat paranoid view of the intentions of the Electoral Finance Bill. The select committee will ensure that the bill meets its intentions. It is designed to stop hypocritical, extreme groups who are not even prepared to sign their advertisements with who they actually are—

Madam SPEAKER: We will have the question in silence, because it is becoming impossible to hear, and all members are entitled to hear the answer.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: —who use false and empty addresses as the means of contacting those groups, who claim not even to vote in the electoral system, and who spend hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars designed to secure the election of one political party, which claimed to know nothing about it at the time, and whose current leader knew so little that he claims to have remembered not opening the email that informed him about this campaign.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the people he is talking about broke the existing law; that the big problem with that was that the enforcement was left to the police, which failed to prosecute anyone; and that his Electoral Finance Bill repeats that weakness in our electoral law in that there is no realistic enforcement of this drift-net against criticism?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Now the member is trying to have it the other way in saying that the bill will achieve nothing in this respect, and that anybody will be able to say whatever he or she likes. Classically, the National Party now has two completely opposing points of view on this particular legislation. This legislation is designed to catch people who mount extraordinarily expensive campaigns on behalf of a political party, and who are not prepared to front up about who they are and why they are doing it—pretending, in one case last time, that they do not even participate in voting—all so that they can hasten the coming of Armageddon and the end of the world, which was their stated purpose for electoral intervention.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the paranoia and contradiction are actually in the legislation of the Minister of Justice, which sets out a large number of very detailed requirements, which have the effect, for instance, that a person forwarding an email on a political proposition, who has not seen a statutory declaration from the sender of that email, will be committing an offence by forwarding the email, and that the enforcement of this bizarre and paranoid set of rules still falls with the police, who failed utterly last time to enforce the law?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The New Zealand Police is the appropriate agency to enforce the law in any circumstance. That is absolutely clear. It is equally clear that this legislation is before the select committee, which will ensure that it meets its objectives. In this area, as I am sure the member is very well aware, many highly intelligent minds spend time trying to find ways round it. It is second only to tax law in that respect.

Question No. 3 to Minister

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 155/6. That particular ruling, issued by Speaker Hunt in 2001 and 2004, states very clearly with regard to answers from Ministers that the answer “cannot be on an unrelated matter that it suits the Minister to introduce.” Of course, the ruling goes on to say that that does not mean there has to be an answer or that it will be satisfactory. But our point in this case is that Annette King saying “I thought you were referring to when Dr Prebble knew”, even though his name was never mentioned and she was asked twice when she knew, fails this particular test.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): There can be no merit in that argument. The Minister stated clearly that she misunderstood the question. She cannot then be accused of trying to mislead the House in the nature of the answer she gave. It is quite unlike saying “I support the war in Iraq.” and then later saying “I didn’t support the war in Iraq.” That is a clear contradiction.

Madam SPEAKER: Maybe I can assist members here. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 19/1: “A point of order is a matter concerning the procedures of the House in which the Speaker can take action—”. It is not for the Speaker, however, to decide whether0 a Minister’s answer is correct. That is very clear in the Standing Orders and in Speakers’ rulings. The issue is obviously a matter for debate, which was the point I was endeavouring to make. It is for the House to consider, but it is not for the Speaker to consider, because it is not a point of order. The Speaker does not intervene in the debate.

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Twice during Dr Cullen speaking to that point of order, National MP David Bennett interjected on him. I thought you had now given two warnings that points of order are to be heard in silence.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, and I will reinforce that. Unfortunately for the member, however, members on his own side also interjected at the end. But I would remind members that I will not be tolerant in future. We are not going to have today the disorder we have had in the House this week.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just want to go back to the ruling you just made and suggest that it may be time for you to look at a number of Speakers’ rulings and come back to the House with a considered ruling, because on the face of it there are some contradictory Speakers’ rulings in regard to questions. There is, for instance, Speakers’ ruling 153/5, which states: “The Speaker cannot force a Minister to give an answer to a question and has no responsibility for the quality of the answer that is given …”. That ruling was by Mr Speaker Harrison and Mr Speaker Arthur. Then, over a couple of pages, there is Speaker’s ruling 155/6 by Mr Hunt on two occasions, that “Any answer must address the question asked.” It “must be a direct response; it cannot be on an unrelated matter …”, etc. We get ourselves into the position where on the one hand you rule in accordance with the earlier set of rulings that you are not responsible for the content or quality of an answer, but then there is this other Speaker’s ruling about Ministers having to address the question. It has seemed to me for some time that therein lies the conflict we get into trouble with at question time. It may be time for you to take some time to reflect upon the rulings of those various Speakers and give a more contemporary and considered ruling for the future to guide us. Otherwise, I think the confusion is going to continue.

Madam SPEAKER: I am happy to do so.

Taxation—Thresholds

6. HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: What percentage of New Zealanders now pay the 39 percent tax rate his Government introduced, when he said on 23 December 1999 that: “Ninety-five percent of people will not be asked to pay more tax. Instead, only the top 5 percent of income earners will pay more.”, and what would the cost be of honouring that statement and restoring the threshold to the top 5 percent of income earners?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Latest figures show 10.6 percent of taxpayers are in the top bracket. It would cost around $273 million per annum to move the top threshold to 79,000, which would be the relevant point for 5 percent, on the latest estimates. This would give roughly $22 per week to everyone on over $79,000 a year, and nothing to the nearly 90 percent of New Zealanders who earn less than $60,000 per year. Of course, income earners in the top bracket now pay only 30 percent on a wide range of savings vehicles, compared with 33 percent in 1999.

Heather Roy: Can he confirm that the proceeds of this creeping taxation have never been spent, that they have only ever contributed to his burgeoning operating surpluses, and that they should have been given back to hard-working Kiwi taxpayers well before now?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I cannot. I cannot claim to have run a cash surplus every year since 1999-2000. What is more, I remind the member that, along with a number of other people I am sure, she has criticised the Government in recent months for too loose a fiscal position. She has just asked for a looser one than the one we are operating. I remind the House again that this Government maintains the tightest fiscal stance of any political party in the Parliament.

H V Ross Robertson: What other changes to the financial position of New Zealanders have occurred since December 1999?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: First of all, of course, a hugely greater number of people are in work—some 300,000-odd New Zealanders; superannuitants get about $50 a week more, for a married couple, than they did in 1999; 70,000 children have been lifted above the income poverty threshold; and the annual cost of going to a doctor has fallen from about $940 a year on average, to $440 a year. These are the kinds of programmes the Government’s fiscal policies have enabled us to introduce, and of course we have massively increased spending on public transport, roading, and infrastructure in general.

R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister agree that a flat tax rate has a greater impost on the less well off than a graduated tax scale, and that a reduction in the top tax rate and adjustments to thresholds would provide greater tax equity?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There are a number of ways in which the taxation system could be altered. Some of those have significant equity improvements, and some have significant equity reductions. I notice that the question implies the move that would have the largest equity reduction.

H V Ross Robertson: How much has the Government spent since 2004 on reducing taxation?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The total cost, as at the last financial year, of tax reduction initiatives since 2004 is $1.7 billion. This will rise to $4.5 billion by 2010-11, with no further changes.

Heather Roy: Does he deny that his secret agenda is to adjust the threshold in the next Budget so that only the top 5 percent of income earners will be required to pay the top rate of tax, as he originally promised in 1999, and does he truly believe that taxpayers are so naive that they are blind to the fact that he has been saving his surplus for years in order to deliver a massive election-year spending spree with which to coerce and bribe voters?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If it was a secret agenda I could neither confirm nor deny it, of course. What I can confirm to the member is that the Government will be announcing its long-term programme around taxation well before the election next year, and probably in the context of the Budget. But I tell the member not to hold her breath for the largest gains going to herself and a few others.

Heather Roy: I seek leave to table a speech made by Dr Michael Cullen on 23 December 1999 where he said that only the top 5 percent of income earners would be—

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

Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflict of Interest

7. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Did the Ministry of Health, or anyone else, express any caution to the then Minister of Health, the Hon Annette King, on the appropriateness of her appointing Mr Hausmann to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board at a time when his company intended to put in a bid for a multimillion-dollar contract with that same board; if so, who?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): No, the then Minister of Health, the Hon Annette King, did not receive any such advice. I am told her office did receive advice from the chair of the board, Kevin Atkinson, that he would prefer a person from the Hawke’s Bay, and subsequent to the appointment the chair was quoted in the local paper, Hawke’s Bay Today, as saying that he was certain Mr Hausmann’s expertise in the health sector would be valuable to the board.

Hon Tony Ryall: Did any staff member of the Ministry of Health receive any expressions of concern about the appropriateness of appointing to the board a man who says his company intends to bid for multimillion-dollar contracts to be let by that board?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member overlooks that almost certainly Mr Hausmann already had contracts with that board. I think Mr Hausmann’s company has contracts with most district health boards, and as I recall his conflict of interest declaration, in it he speaks of both existing and prospective contracts. So the issue is not, as is always the case, whether a conflict exists. Most boards have district health board members who have conflicts, and in some cases they are the majority of the board. The issue is how those conflicts are managed, and the long and short of it is that Mr Hausmann’s conflict of interest statement was full from the beginning.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why will the Minister not answer the question: did anyone in the Ministry of Health receive any expressions of concern about the appropriateness of appointing a man whose company intends to bid for multimillion-dollar contracts to the board of that district health board during consideration of that very process?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am trying to tell the member that the issue of conflicts of interest was well known to the Ministry of Health, because everyone had been told about it by Mr Hausmann. That, I think, is really the essential point. He was straightforwardly saying he could well be interested in a tender if one went forward. The chair knew that, the Ministry of Health knew that, the Minister knew that, and the Cabinet knew that. Everyone knew it.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: So it was a cover-up?

Hon PETE HODGSON: It was not a cover-up; no, it was an “open-up”. And I tell the guy who cannot stop interjecting that the reason we are having an inquiry is that Mr Hausmann wrote to me, asking whether we could please do so once more. He has already been looked into, but because people keep on coming up and saying untrue things about him, he asked whether we could please have another inquiry. I said that yes, we could.

Sue Moroney: What was the extent of the knowledge of the potential conflict of interest arising from this appointment?

Hon PETE HODGSON: It was considerable, and the main source of knowledge about Mr Hausmann’s conflict of interest came from Mr Hausmann. Mr Hausmann said on 18 May in a written conflict of interest statement, which has been made public more than once, long, long ago, that he had a conflict of interest. He was thinking that he might get himself some more conflicts of interest. He said how he might manage his conflicts of interest, and how he might confer with his chair, should he be appointed, in managing his conflicts of interest. All I can say is that the Tories’ mate Dr Bierre, from the Auckland District Health Board, did none of that, and a multimillion-dollar contract came tumbling down, taking Dr Bierre with it.

Hon Tony Ryall: Can the Minister explain why Mr Hausmann, when Annette King appointed him in 2005, did not declare an interest in Wellcare Education Ltd, which was subsequently awarded an untendered $1.1 million contract with the district health board; and how does the Minister justify his advice to Parliament that Mr Hausmann made a full declaration when Companies Office records will show that Mr Hausmann’s interest was not appropriately declared to the Ministry of Health?

Hon PETE HODGSON: That contract was primarily, and first and foremost, not with the district health board; it was with the Ministry of Social Development. Therefore, there was not a conflict. However, it is also the case that the Ministry of Social Development thinks that that contract was extremely well done and has rolled it out in other parts of the country, but not involving Mr Hausmann’s company all the time, as I understand it. And it is also possible that Mr Hausmann, when he put together his contract with the Ministry of Social Development, made it clear that he was a board member of the district health board. It would seem to me likely that he did that, because everyone else knew that he was a member of Hawke’s Bay’s District Health Board.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why did the Minister say that Mr Hausmann made a full disclosure, when it is clear that Mr Hausmann’s interests in Wellcare Education Ltd were never disclosed when his appointment was made in 2005; and does the Minister think that this might be covered in the investigation by the Auditor-General that has begun in Hawke’s Bay today?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The investigation that has been begun by the Auditor-General is, as the member may know, a preliminary investigation so that the Auditor-General can come to a view about whether a full investigation is a good idea. He will take a preliminary look, come to a view in 6 or 8 weeks, and tell us all. So that is good. We have an investigation already under way, the terms of reference for which are broad and include things like “any other matters”. If there is anything to uncover that has not been uncovered in relation to this Hawke’s Bay District Health Board issue, then we have three people who are pretty smart at uncovering such things.

Hon Tony Ryall: Will the Ministry of Health investigations include an investigation into allegations that the Hawke’s Bay whistleblower was bullied and subsequently pushed out of her job in an attempt to silence her; if not, why not?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am not sure which part of “any other matters” the member does not get, because—

Hon Tony Ryall: Yes, or no?

Hon PETE HODGSON: He wants to know whether it is a yes or a no? You see, it includes everything; therefore, nothing is excluded. Everything can be included, and the member can draw his own conclusions as to whether that is a yes or a no answer.

Employment—Numbers in Paid Employment

8. RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has he received on the number of New Zealanders in paid employment?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister of Social Development and Employment): I have seen a major proposal to tackle unemployment by the reintroduction of a failed Work for the Dole scheme. Under this proposal, unemployment beneficiaries would be forced to work in make-work schemes, where they would earn nothing more than the dole, and where they would have their chances of getting a real job reduced. That major policy announcement came from National spokesperson Judith Collins, which suggests that Bill English is right and that she has been pushed beyond her capacity, because she does not realise that the policy has already proved to be a failure.

Russell Fairbrother: What further reports has the Minister received on the number of New Zealanders in paid employment; and will Ms Collins continue as such?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have received a report today that shows that we have the best employment and unemployment statistics ever. The latest household labour force survey shows that—and I will do these one at a time—there are fewer unemployed people than ever before, there are more people in paid employment than ever before, the New Zealand labour force is bigger than ever before, more women are employed than ever before, and more Māori are employed than ever before. The good news just keeps rolling out. Meanwhile, the National Party wants to bring back Work for the Dole.

Russell Fairbrother: What reports has he seen on the number of Māori in paid employment since Labour became the Government?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: There is just more good news. I am delighted to report that there are more Māori in paid employment than ever before. Māori unemployment is down to just 7 percent. That is a huge improvement. When National was in Government, Māori unemployment was at 18.6 percent. That is another example of New Zealanders being better off under Labour.

Housing—Auckland Region

9. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Housing: Has he read the report Housing Supply in the Auckland Region 2000-2005 prepared for Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Centre for Housing Research; if so, what is his Government’s response to its observation that “A number of factors have constrained supply. One of these has been a limited supply of land. Another contributor has been difficulties in the consents process, especially its time consuming nature”?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): Yes, I was briefed on the report by its author, Dr Grimes, prior to its publication, and I noted its support for our Hobsonville project, which is opposed, of course, by John Key and the National Party. The Auckland metropolitan urban limit has already been moved five times since 1999. I am also advised by the Ministry for the Environment that it is currently working with a number of councils to help improve the speed of their consent processes. As I have stated a number of times, the Government is not opposed to adjustments to the urban metropolitan limit, but these must be well planned and should not lead to endless, sprawling suburbs with their inherent transport and infrastructure costs.

Phil Heatley: What changes to the Resource Management Act is he promoting to the Minister for the Environment in order to improve housing supply, given that his own report states: “The RMA process needs a revamp.”?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The Ministry for the Environment has got staff working at the moment with a number of territorial authorities around New Zealand to improve the processes under the Resource Management Act. It is really simplistic to say that gutting the Resource Management Act will solve the problem. It will not. It is about the capacity of local government, and this Government is helping.

Dave Hereora: What reports has the Minister seen about reactions to proposals floated at the weekend to gut the Resource Management Act and abolish metropolitan urban limits?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I have received uniformly negative reports. The Taranaki Daily News said that Mr Key had “offered platitudes and vagaries, political smoke and mirrors. And you can’t buy a house with that.” A Christchurch city councillor, Bob Parker, said that scrapping city limits is simplistic and short-term thinking. The Nelson Mail asked how Mr Key could square gutting the Resource Management Act with his supposed new commitment to the environment. And, more of the same, that party’s housing policies were recently described in the Waikato Times as mischievous and illogical.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Does the Minister agree that to address the current housing affordability crisis both supply of, and demand for, housing must be addressed; if so, has he had any discussions with the Minister of Immigration regarding the issue of housing affordability, given the huge impact immigration has had on demand for housing, especially in the Auckland region?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I agree that the Government needs to provide leadership, and we are doing so with a number of initiatives. I continue to talk with my colleagues to see how we can enhance issues like the Welcome Home Loan scheme and the development of greenfield sites, like those at Hobsonville and Weymouth, in order to provide affordable homes for people to rent.

Sue Bradford: Has the Minister read the submissions from Local Government New Zealand and the Wellington City Council to the housing affordability inquiry this morning, which state that there actually is enough land within our major urban areas for our growing housing needs for at least the next 15 years; and does he agree that encouraging urban sprawl will only create higher costs in infrastructure, without necessarily ensuring that new housing is any more affordable?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I have not yet read the Wellington submission, but I agree with the member when I think about what happens in Auckland. In Auckland, the current metropolitan urban limit contains 1,500 hectares that currently are not in housing development, and if current applications that are being put in are successful, we will have housing supply available until 2022, based on current demand.

Dr Pita Sharples: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Is the Minister aware of the conclusions in the Housing Supply in the Auckland Regions 2000-2005 report that South Auckland housing stress is likely to be a continuing feature, with high occupancy rates staying at around 3.6 percent; and when can the mainly Māori and Pasifika families in the greater Manukau community expect to see a specific plan that responds to their desperate need for housing?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I certainly agree with the member that Auckland is suffering housing distress, as is every large urban centre in similar circumstances in countries such as Australia, the UK, Canada, and elsewhere. But this Government is committed to providing affordable housing for ordinary people. We are not interested in simplistic slogans and clichés. What we are looking at is providing opportunities for people. We have already had almost 3,000 people access the Welcome Home Loan scheme. We are doing major developments like that at Hobsonville, which will provide 3,000 homes, with 15 percent being for first home buyers. There are lots of initiatives going on. Most of all, of course, we did not sell 13,000 State houses like National did.

Dr Pita Sharples: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question related to the Manukau community, not the communities he talked about.

Madam SPEAKER: I think the Minister addressed the question, but if he wants to add anything, he has an opportunity to do so.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: One of the major areas where the Housing New Zealand Corporation has been developing its rental stock, making up for the 1,300 houses that were sold under National—7,000 have been built since we came back into Government—is the South Auckland area. Many are in that area. One-third of our tenants are of Māori origin, and one-third are Pacific peoples. As far as providing affordable rental accommodation in Manukau City is concerned, we have a proud record.

Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister said the Government had built 7,000 State houses. He might like to correct that figure, because I have answers to my written questions that state he has leased at least half of those houses. So that figure is misleading.

Madam SPEAKER: I do not want to go through previous rulings. That is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Has the Minister read the research on Māori housing trends, which states that despite low and declining homeownership rates of less than 50 percent, most Māori have a strong desire to own their homes, but that “housing policy responses have been inconsistent and uncoordinated between delivery agencies.”; and when will a Māori housing strategy be implemented?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Yes, I have read the report, and am working closely with my Associate Minister of Housing, the Hon Dover Samuels. We are looking at ways in which we can speed up the delivery of housing for Māori people in rural areas. One of the big issues is the provision of skilled people—builders, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, and so on. Figures that Mr Maharey just gave to the House during the previous question showed that many New Zealanders are in work. That has created an absolute skills shortage in rural areas, and that is something we are trying to address.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Does he recall his answer in the House of 28 June 2007, when he said: “I have been concerned for some time that progress on Māori housing has not been as rapid as it could have been. Some very significant announcements to speed this up will be made in the next few weeks.”; and given that it has been 7 weeks since that statement, on what date will he make those “significant” announcements?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I do recall those words, and an announcement is coming very soon.

Phil Heatley: What streamlining of the Building Act is he promoting to the Minister of Building and Construction to improve housing supply, given that today’s Local Government New Zealand submission to the affordability inquiry states: “Requirements for councils under the Building Act add increased complexity and requirements to the consent process, increase costs and potentially lengthen the processing times. Councils expect the situation to worsen.”?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: What a fascinating question from a representative of a political party that deregulated the building code and created leaky homes! I am working closely with my colleague the Minister for Building and Construction to ensure that New Zealand consumers never again have leaky homes, which were caused by the National Government.

Phil Heatley: Does the Minister agree with his own report, and with the submission of the Reserve Bank to the affordability inquiry, which states: “Land availability, planning regulations, and construction prices have influenced the cost of supplying houses in recent years.”; if so, what is he doing about land availability, planning regulations, and construction prices?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I agree that a whole range of issues affect housing prices, but I stand in the House proud to be a member of a Government that is ensuring that consumers never again have leaky homes, which is what happens when one guts regulations.

Phil Heatley: Why is he steadfastly refusing to promote fixing the Resource Management Act, refusing to promote streamlining the Building Act, not freeing up more land, and not boosting trade training in school, when everyone else agrees with John Key that these initiatives would help those families struggling to buy their first home?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: That is an interesting question from a member of a party that abolished apprenticeships! The Labour Government is committed to providing—

Madam SPEAKER: Be seated. Would the House please settle. Would the Minister now address the question.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The Labour-led Government is committed to providing affordable and decent homes for all Kiwis. That is why we brought in income-related rents, that is why we created initiatives like the Welcome Home Loan scheme, that is why we are providing greenfield sites like that at Hobsonville, and that is why we brought in Modern Apprenticeships—so that we can create craftspeople to build those houses. This Government has a proud record in housing.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the Government’s own report criticising the Resource Management Act and recommending sensible land—

Leave granted.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the Local Government New Zealand submission criticising the Building Act—just like John Key suggests.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the Council of Trade Unions report demanding more trade training in schools.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the Reserve Bank’s submission agreeing with all this, as well.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table John Key’s speech, which appears to have the backing of everyone.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. On another matter, which we canvassed before, I want to know from you the avenues that I can pursue. I know that Chris Carter has not built 7,000 State houses; I know for a fact that he has leased up to at least one-half of them. How do I address that, because that is misleading the House?

Madam SPEAKER: The member is asking the Speaker to rule on matters that, obviously, she cannot do under the Standing Orders. The member has many avenues available: doing research, writing letters, asking written questions, and asking oral questions.

Outdoor Recreation—Families

10. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister of Conservation: What is the Government doing to encourage Kiwi families to enjoy the great outdoors?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation): Last Sunday, at the start of Conservation Week, I announced that it will be free for children and teenagers under 18 to stay in Department of Conservation huts and campsites on the eight Great Walks and the Whanganui Journey, fulfilling a key recommendation of the New Zealand Recreation Summit that I convened last September at Te Papa. For a family of four, this will bring the cost of a 3-day tramp on the Abel Tasman Coast Track down by a third, to around $180. The savings are even larger on the more expensive Great Walks like the Milford Track.

Steve Chadwick: What benefits does the Minister think will result from access for Kiwi families to these Great Walks?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: There are many benefits from greater recreational use of the conservation estate. We want to encourage young people to switch off the PlayStation and get active in the great outdoors, which will help to reduce the growing problem of childhood obesity and adult obesity. We want to provide affordable holiday homes for families to spend time together, especially now that workers will have an extra week of annual leave. We want to ensure that, as our country becomes more urbanised, young people continue to be able to experience our magnificent outdoors that helped to shape our national identity.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can he confirm that his Government put up the hut and camp fees in 2001, in 2002, in 2003, in 2004, and in May 2007, so that in the example that he has just given, the cost for two adults and two children doing the Abel Tasman Coast Track was $126 in 1999, is $225 today, and will go up to $270 on 1 October this year, but, miraculously, 3 months before the election it will to drop to $180; is this not a symptom of electoral panic in the Government that it spends 8 years putting up the charges but that 3 months prior to the election it drops them?

Madam SPEAKER: The member was given the courtesy of asking his question in silence. Now would the Minister please reply and would other members please enable the rest of us to reply.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I can confirm that it will now be free for children under the age of 18, because this Government is absolutely committed to getting as many New Zealanders out as possible to enjoy the conservation estate. We are taking active steps to ensure that New Zealanders can access recreation. This week is Conservation Week and the theme of Conservation Week this year is “recreation”.

Metiria Turei: Is it one of his Government’s initiatives for promoting the great outdoors to under 18-year-old Kiwis, for all the great reasons that he has talked of, to send them into conservation groups such as the Save Happy Valley Coalition as paid informants to spy on other under-18-year-olds as they and their great spotted brethren enjoy the great outdoors?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The only people whom Department of Conservation staff will be spying on are people who are doing naughty things like fishing in marine reserves and so on.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the report of 8 February 2001 in which the Government announced an increase in hut passes.

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the report of 30 September 2002 announcing an increase in all mountain hut fees.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the report of 22 January 2003 announcing an increase in all Department of Conservation campsite fees.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the report of 17 August 2004 announcing an increase in fees on all Great Walks.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the report of 7 May 2007 announcing that all Department of Conservation fees on the Abel Tasman Coast Track would go up by 20 percent.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

Question No. 3 to Minister

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I seek leave of the House to ask one further supplementary question of the Minister of State Services, regarding the question previously asked, in addition to our allocation.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Gerry Brownlee: When was the Minister of State Services told that David Benson-Pope had expressed an opinion to Mr Logan on the employment of the communications manager?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I was told on Wednesday, 25 July.

Work and Income Offices—Safety of Clients

11. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What actions, if any, are taken to protect Work and Income clients who visit Work and Income offices?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister of Social Development and Employment): All Work and Income sites have permanent security guards deployed and CCTV installed. Intruder and duress alarms have been installed, and all staff have received relevant security training. These measures overall are an attempt to create a safe environment for both staff and clients.

Judith Collins: Does the level of protection offered to clients of Work and Income extend to offering protection to fugitives fleeing from justice?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can only imagine that the member has a particular case in point, and if she puts that specifically perhaps I can try to answer it for her.

Judith Collins: Why on 30 July this year did the manager of Work and Income in Papatoetoe use Work and Income premises to hide a person who had smashed up property in the town centre, then let that same person out the back door to prevent his apprehension?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: If the member has facts of that kind, I urge her to give them to me and I will investigate them immediately.

Judith Collins: Is the Minister now telling the House that he is not aware that at a meeting yesterday the manager of Work and Income in Papatoetoe refused to cooperate with the police and stated that anyone entering Work and Income premises is presumed to be a client and deserving of protection?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No. What I am confirming is that if the member has specific information she wants followed up she should give it to me and I will do that immediately.

Jill Pettis: What is the Government doing to protect Work and Income clients from being forced into failed make-work schemes, being forced to pay market rentals for State housing, or having their benefits slashed so that they cannot afford to eat?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: An excellent question. If New Zealanders want to avoid those kinds of policies and at the same time see a continuation of the policies that have produced a lot of jobs, reduced the level of poverty in this country, and lowered the cost of rental properties, then they need to do just one thing, and that is vote Labour.

Judith Collins: What does the Minister say to the people of Hunters Corner, Papatoetoe who, when taking steps to protect their properties and apprehend perpetrators, then see his Government department actively assisting criminals to get away with that behaviour, and refusing to cooperate with the police?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: What I would say to the people of Hunters Corner is that on this side of the House we investigate these matters properly and make sure we get to the bottom of the situation rather than making insinuations of the kind the member has made. But if she has new information, she should give it to me and we will investigate it.

Judith Collins: Does the Minister not agree with me that what we have here is a public servant harbouring a criminal, facilitating that criminal’s escape, and turning a Work and Income office into some sort of Notre Dame type of sanctuary for criminals?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As the member, I know, has a legal background, I would imagine that what she actually knows is that there are allegations that need to be investigated. We will do that in the proper fashion and not in the kangaroo court that the member seems to want to create with her questions.

Great South Basin—Gas Exploration

12. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Associate Minister of Energy: When he told the House on 19 July this year that “a significant gas discovery in the Great South Basin … will actually help in terms of our thermal generation” and that he would “much rather have our existing thermal power stations fuelled by natural gas than by coal”, was he proposing that the gas from the Great South Basin be used at the Huntly Power Station; if so, how was he proposing it get there given the lack of pipelines in the South Island and Southern Ocean?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy): It is unlikely that gas from the Great South Basin would ever be economic to use at Huntly for power generation.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister read his Government’s draft New Zealand Energy Strategy, which shows there is 4,500 megawatts of new renewable electricity generation available at less cost than liquefied natural gas; if so, why did he suggest to the House earlier that the main benefit of gas in the Great South Basin would be the replacing of coal at Huntly?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: The answer to the first part of the question is yes, of course I have. The answer to the second part of the question is that it is worth noting that the question put down on the Order Paper today was assembled from comments taken out of order and out of context from the ninth and sixth supplementary questions to question No. 4 on 19 July. The general thrust of what I was saying is that for the world environment it is much better to be using gas for generating electricity rather than either oil or coal.

Maryan Street: Can the Minister assure the House that appropriate environmental protections are in place in the development of the Great South Basin?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: Yes. Under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 the operator of an offshore installation, such as a drilling rig or a production platform, will be responsible for the full costs of any oil spill response, clean up, and/or restoration activities.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister agree with me that if there is a sufficient find of gas in the Great South Basin—and it is recovered, of course—then it makes very good sense to establish a gas-fired power station down there for New Zealanders rather than to export the gas to some other country so that it can have a gas-fired power station?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: It is likely that if there were a significant gas find in the Great South Basin, it would be of such a scale that liquefied natural gas would be the most likely outcome, in which case any gas or oil found in the Great South Basin would be sold at world prices. We are much better concentrating on the direct use of gas than on converting gas to electricity. I have to agree with Jeanette Fitzsimons that thermal electricity is vastly less preferable for the planet than the use of renewable resources. I remind the member that New Zealand is ranked third in the world in terms of the use of renewable resources for electricity generation.

Peter Brown: I thank the Minister for that answer and ask whether he will agree with me that if there is a gas find of a sufficient quantity in the Great South Basin, then we can expect pipes to be installed and for at least South Island New Zealanders to have gas-fired fires and cooking facilities; can we expect that?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: It is early days yet. The prospectivity of the Great South Basin is, apparently, very high by world standards, but it is also a very expensive field to develop. We will have to wait and see what the outcomes are, but I look forward to the developments, as I am sure the member does.

( Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing. )

ENDS

© Scoop Media