Questions And Answers - Thursday, 11 October 2007

Questions to Ministers

Taxation—Thresholds

1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Why is it Government policy that someone earning $39,000 a year should pay the 33c tax rate?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): As I outlined on Tuesday, there are various factors that can tell me whether someone earning that amount does pay 33c in tax at the margin. The average rate he or she pays at that point is normally 20 percent. In the example of a single-income earner in a family with two children, the Working for Families package means that person may effectively pay no net tax at all.

Hon Bill English: Why does the Minister keep using the example of people in the Working for Families package, when the vast majority of earners on $39,000 a year do not have children who qualify for the Working for Families package and pay, on their marginal dollar, 33c in the dollar, which is the rich person’s tax rate according to that Minister.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: On the last point, I have never said that 33c in the dollar is the rich person’s tax rate. It is not even the highest tax rate in the New Zealand scale. Why the member keeps making things up is quite beyond me.

Charles Chauvel: Can the Minister tell the House how the tax paid by an average family changed between the years 2000 and 2006?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: According to the OECD’s Taxing Wages Report 2006, the tax burden for a one-earner married couple on the average wage and with two children has fallen from 13.6 percent to 2.6 percent—that is before the extension on 1 July this year. At the same time, that family will have seen cuts in the cost of going to the doctor, which Mr English wants to increase again, prescription costs falling, and saving for retirement made easier.

Hon Peter Dunne: Will the Minister confirm that just under a quarter of taxpayers earn between $40,000 and $80,000 per annum, yet they contribute just under 40 percent of all personal taxes paid, and that reducing the burden on those people has to be a priority for any future tax reform?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think it is fair that what people see as the priority depends very much on where they are on the tax scale. I have heard people argue that the priority is to lower the top tax rate; they tend to be on the top tax rate. I have heard people argue that the 33c in the dollar rate is the most important criterion, and they tend to be on the 33c in the dollar rate. I tend to hear a lot of people—something like 45 percent of total full-time wage earners, and way, way more than that as a percentage of total income earners—who are on the bottom tax rate, and who would like to see some relief at their level, as well.

Gordon Copeland: Does the Minister recall that in announcing his plan to end fiscal drag in Budget 2005 by adjusting the tax brackets, he gave as his reason its logic; if he does recall that, where did the logic go in Budget 2007 when he canned those plans, and might we see a return to logic in Budget 2008—or does he now regard fiscal drag as acceptable, even though illogical?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In Budget 2007 the priority was clearly outlined: to try to lift New Zealand’s savings record. With over 200,000 New Zealanders having joined KiwiSaver already, I think it is clear that that policy is succeeding very substantially. In terms of the issues the member raises, of course there are many different ways in which taxes can be cut. Indeed, I have made it quite clear that one of the criteria that I will apply is aspects of fairness, particularly in a society where incomes at the top end tend to increase faster than incomes at the bottom end, in any case.

Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister straightforwardly whether he regards fiscal drag as acceptable, and he did not answer that part of the question.

Madam SPEAKER: Your question actually involved several thoughts, and the Minister is required to address only one of them. I thought he addressed two.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that since he took office in 1999 the average wage has grown by 30 percent and the tax on the average wage of $46,000 has grown by 40 percent; and why does he think that that is good idea?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I thank the member for telling New Zealanders that the average wage has grown by 30 percent over the life of this Government. I would not have thought so from National’s usual propaganda in that regard. During that time, people on such a wage have also seen enormous improvements in a range of areas. Their prospects for New Zealand superannuation have been lifted by restoring it to the level that that member cut when he was a Minister. At the same time, we are saving money to ensure that we can afford to pay it at that level over the long term. For those people with dependent children, we have introduced Working for Families. If they go to a doctor, the cost of a doctor’s visit has been reduced. If they have a young person who is a student, that student now has access to an interest-free loan. I could go on endlessly about the benefits of the Government—and all of those policies are supported by an overwhelming majority of people, and all of them were opposed by the National Party on introduction.

Charles Chauvel: Has the Minister seen any reports about mechanisms for funding revenue reductions; and how do those compare with the Government’s four criteria for assessing revenue reductions?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, indeed. I well recollect the approach employed in 1998-99 when personal taxes were cut. The then Government decided it could not actually afford those cuts, and it then cut New Zealand superannuation so that retired New Zealanders could pay for those tax cuts. That does not meet the criterion of fairness that I outlined on Tuesday.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did not. Rubbish!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Oh, the member says it is not true that the National Government cut New Zealand superannuation. It lowered the floor from 65 percent of the average wage to 60 percent of the average wage, and that was one of the first things that the incoming Labour Government restored. Taxes were cut by National and the elderly paid for it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Are the facts that the Minister is referring to that on 1 October 1998 National took the level of superannuation down to 60 percent of the average working wage, that when Labour came back into power it restored the level of superannuation to 65 percent of that wage, but that when the Minister used the words “restored the level”, he really meant that Labour, at the behest of New Zealand First, increased the level at the recent Budget to 66 percent of the average working wage—is that not the chronological series of facts?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I can confirm that the incoming Labour Government increased the level of superannuation back to 65 percent of the average wage, and that we responded to Mr Peters’ polite request to raise that to 66 percent of the average wage as part of the confidence and supply agreement.

Hon Peter Dunne: What does the Minister say to those who would argue that the thrust of tax changes in recent years has been to benefit families and working couples but has been of no benefit to individuals; and how would he envisage changes that might benefit individual taxpayers being considered in the future?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is a fair comment that the Government’s priority around tax cuts has been for modest-income families with dependent children—[Interruption] Apparently Mr English objects to that being done, because, of course, he is a high-income person with dependent children, so it does not worry him at all, in that particular regard. But we do worry about people who are struggling to bring up their kids and provide properly for them. Other changes in the taxation system, of which there are many potential changes, can help those people who are not in that position. But, of course, I emphasise that once one gets into tax cuts across the board, then the cost of those becomes very expensive in relation to the benefit for any individual person.

Hon Bill English: Why should the public believe the Minister’s crocodile tears for middle-income earners, when the Government accounts yesterday showed that in the last 12 months wage and salary earners paid $1 billion more in tax than previously, and when the only tax cut he has actually put forward was for companies to pay $1 billion less?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I note again the pro-business National Party’s opposition to tax cuts for business. I hope Mr English keeps going to those business lunches and breakfasts and saying: “We will increase the corporate tax rate back to 33c in the dollar.”—yeah, right!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister confirm the following information: in 1998 the then leader of the National Government threatened the then Treasurer of this country that not taking the rate down from 65 percent to 60 percent of the average working wage could be a coalition breaker, and, more important, the then Treasurer had papers to show that National wanted the rate to go down to 55 percent of the average working wage; and can the Minister confirm the very important fact that when Labour got back into power and the rate was still at 60 percent, New Zealand First agreed in its negotiations with Labour for the urgency vote for the Cullen fund that the condition would be to raise it back to 65 percent—a glorious history of defence of the elderly?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I can confirm half of the last claim. It is certainly correct that we could not have introduced the New Zealand Superannuation Fund without the support of New Zealand First. It would have failed because other parties opposed the fund. Now, of course, almost every party supports the New Zealand Superannuation Fund; even the Greens keep trying to find new and innovative ways of changing the entire world with the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. However, it is not true, I have to say to my friend and colleague, that it was a condition that superannuation be raised back to 65 percent. That was a clear promise of the Labour Party manifesto, which was implemented. It was one reason for cancelling the further tax cuts that National was planning.

Hon Bill English: Can we take it from the Minister’s answers today that Labour’s policy is to tax people on $39,000 a year at 33c in the dollar, which used to be the top tax rate in New Zealand, that it is Labour policy that people on the average wage pay an increasing proportion of their wages as tax, and that the reason for that is so that Labour can collect the money, then pay it back through its own political bribes?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What, of course, the member is saying is this: is absolutely essential and desperately needy that taxes should be cut, and God forbid that a Labour Government should do it.

Hon Bill English: Why did the Labour Government announce in the 2005 Budget that it would lift tax thresholds across the board in election year, then decide in 2007 to break that promise to middle New Zealand, and then give advice in Cabinet papers for the 2007 Budget that the Minister has no intention of giving middle-income earners the benefit of increases in tax thresholds because the Government will need the money for its plans?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member is factually wrong again. The decision taken was to lift tax thresholds on 1 April 2008—actually well after the 2005 election, so the member has that wrong for a start. The decision to abandon that was taken because there was clear advice that the Government had to be careful of the fiscal stimulus of doing that. That is why the Government enhanced KiwiSaver, and 200,000-plus Kiwis have responded to that. We still do not know the National Party’s policy on KiwiSaver, but no doubt we will have at least two versions of it before the year is out.

Hon Bill English: Why does the Minister not just front up and acknowledge to those people on $40,000 a year who are still paying 33c in the dollar, after 8 years under Labour, that he made a promise to them to reduce the burden of tax, and that he broke that promise?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I notice the member is already outbidding himself. He started off at $39,000 a year, and now he is up to $40,000 a year. By the end of question time he might be up to $60,000 a year.

Roading—Auckland Traffic Congestion

2. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Is he confident that the Government’s investment in the “biggest road-building programme this country has ever seen” has reduced traffic congestion in Auckland?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I am sure that when the road-building programme is completed—[Interruption]

Hon Maurice Williamson: Stay away from men in white coats!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I just hope it is not contagious, that is all I can say. I am sure that when the road-building programme is completed, the congestion will be less than if the road-building programme had not been completed. Of course, while roads are being built, congestion can increase. It is also true that we have at the same time increased spending on passenger transport 12 times since coming into office. So if congestion has increased, that might even raise some questions about that issue.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister seen yesterday’s New Zealand Herald article that details how, despite heavy Government investment in Auckland motorways, much of which is now complete, morning peak speeds over the Auckland region have dropped to 34 kilometres an hour, the slowest recorded since 2003, with average delays of 50.4 seconds for every kilometre travelled, and with speeds plummeting by 10 kilometres an hour along large sections of the motorways; if so, how much further does he expect average speeds to decrease, once this year’s road spend of $593 million is built?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am surprised the member claims that the rebuilding programme in Auckland is almost complete. There is still a great deal of further work to be done in that respect, and until that programme is complete, obviously we will not see the full benefits. However, I probably agree with the member that it is also important to put more money into public transport. That is why we have increased passenger transport funding twelvefold since we became the Government. It is also why it is important that we do not have people taking extreme positions on the regional petrol tax, because without that tax in Auckland we will not be able to see electrification of the railway system, because the Auckland Regional Council certainly will not be able to fund its part of the bargain.

Darien Fenton: Has he seen any reports on forecast congestion in the Auckland region prior to this Government’s increase in infrastructure spending?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We had a report when we became the Government that, in fact, the decades of under-investment in roading and passenger transport in Auckland was a major issue. I think we can be sure that without that investment, some of the travel times we have seen recently would have been substantially higher and, of course, what the Government is also engaged in is major public transport investment in the Auckland region, and it wishes to continue to increase that level of investment.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Has traffic congestion in Auckland, as measured by average speeds achieved in additional travel time in seconds per kilometre, got better or worse in the 8 years since Labour was elected?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not have the comparison back as far as that. The survey is back to 2003 and, of course, during that period of time Auckland has grown very, very substantially, indeed. The size of the population has got very, very much bigger during that period of time. Therefore, without further investment in both roading and public transport, there will be deterioration. What we do not need to do is to borrow to pay for that.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: How does he interpret the map in yesterday’s New Zealand Herald showing that there are a few places where congestion has substantially reduced on Auckland’s motorways and that they tend to be parallel to those places where public transport systems, such as the North Shore busway, have opened?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I regard it as successful Government policy in terms of the investment in public transport in Auckland, but the reality is that it is still true in Auckland that a fairly small proportion of the population travels on public transport, particularly the working population. What is more, Auckland is a city that has an enormous amount of service industry traffic around it, and that traffic cannot go by public transport; it has to go by road.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does he agree with the internationally acclaimed peak oil expert, Richard Heinberg, who has just finished his presentation on peak oil in the Beehive theatrette at lunchtime, and who is present in the gallery today, that New Zealand needs urgent expansion and electrification of public transport because liquid fuel production worldwide, even including oil from unconventional sources, peaked more than a year ago and now appears to be in decline?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There are any number of experts with different views about when peak oil did occur, may occur, or will occur. I am not in the least an expert to make a judgment between all those enormously varying estimates. But I can say to the member, and perhaps he might acknowledge this a little bit, because he has had something to do with it, that this Government has put enormous amounts of extra money into public transport. We are extending electrification in Wellington; we have helped fund that in Wellington; we have taken back the rail track; we are double-tracking the western rail line in Auckland; we are building new railway stations in Auckland; we are separating the grades in certain important parts of the Auckland area; and we now have a proposal to electrify the Auckland rail system, and that will require significant expenditure and will be dependent upon Auckland coming to the party to pay for a large proportion of that expenditure. It is not fair to expect people in the rest of the country to pick up the bulk of the cost of electrification of Auckland’s rail system.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister clarify the position: does he agree that for the foreseeable future there will be a need for cars, trucks, and buses—they might well be powered differently and there might be different numbers of people travelling in them, but there will be a need; if there is a need, then it is essential that we have a decent, safe, highway roading system, and to do that we need a practical, hands-on, fully funded roading maintenance programme?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That is absolutely correct. Indeed, even from the perspective of passenger transport, to try to build a metropolitan-style underground system in Auckland—or even an above-ground rail system in Auckland—will be almost impossible. Unfortunately, the horse bolted out of that stable something like 50 years ago in terms of its possibility. We therefore have to ensure that there is also a proper roading system. I want to emphasise again that it is not just a matter of passenger movements, it is also a matter of industry and business and service movements in Auckland, and they cannot be done on buses and trains.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: While congratulating the Minister on the steps that have been taken to accelerate public transport, and noting that 12 times almost nothing that the National Party left us with is still not huge, can I ask whether he can assure the House, as he wrestles with the question of what capital investments to fund with the $8.7 billion Budget surplus in order to avoid extreme and unsustainable tax cuts, that he will not repeat his 2006 largesse of hugely increasing funding for new motorways but will instead prioritise new public transport infrastructure as suggested in the Government’s Next Steps programme and the energy efficiency and conservation strategy launched today?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I almost feel faint with damned praise after that particular effort from the member, on public transport and the Government’s policy, I think I can say. The Government will continue to invest and increase investment in public transport in Auckland and in other parts of the country. There are a range of possibilities for further infrastructure investment, some of which would help, indeed, in terms of movements of people, even if they have nothing to do with transport.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether he recognises that the problem with the Auckland transport infrastructure is the plethora of local government organisations and the number of people demanding to be heard and to have their way in respect of any future plans, which leads to inevitable paralysis and stagnation, and that no matter what is sought to be done in Auckland, there is something that has to be changed in respect of the system that makes decisions on transport?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think that while it is fair to say the flowchart around Auckland decision-making is still somewhat complicated, it is, on the public transport side, a good deal simpler than it used to be, with the creation of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. I think the real issue comes about in terms of the ability of Auckland itself to fund significant advances in public transport in Auckland and not simply to expect central government to pick up the entire cost, which is not something I think taxpayers in the rest of the country are prepared to see as fair and reasonable.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I seek leave to table the article from yesterday’s New Zealand Herald with the map headed “Motorway work has not helped crawl”.

Leave granted.

Electoral Finance Bill—Parliamentary Expenditure

3. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statements that “the Government is reviewing the rules relating to Parliamentary expenditure” and “The Electoral Finance Bill needs to align with the review of Parliamentary expenditure”; if so, why?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Yes; because it is and it does.

Gerry Brownlee: What does the Minister mean by “aligning” the Electoral Finance Bill with the parliamentary rules on expenditure, and in particular does he mean that the definition of what constitutes an election advertisement should be the same for ordinary members of the public as it is for MPs; if not, why not?

Hon MARK BURTON: What I meant by “aligned” was ensuring that the differentiation is clear so that there is no confusion about legitimately incurred expenditure made by an MP going about his or her duties on the one hand, and, on the other hand, in the case of the Electoral Finance Bill, a party, a candidate, or a third party engaging in electoral activity. That is what that particular reference in a set of questions and answers relating to a press release referred to—not to the subject matter the member referred to.

Gerry Brownlee: Is it, then, Government policy that political parties represented in Parliament should be able to publish election pledge cards or similar material using taxpayers’ money, right up to the election, but that the cost of such material being produced by non-members of Parliament would be an electoral expense, but not for the political party using taxpayers’ money?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I said in the first answer, it is the Government’s intention that material produced by members of Parliament, such as the member producing an electorate newsletter for his constituencies to inform them about his work, is legitimate and is covered— actually, by different legislation, which is not my responsibility—whereas those activities that are part of an election campaign, whether by a candidate, a party, or a third party, are covered by the provisions of the Electoral Finance Bill.

Gerry Brownlee: Is it Government policy that in an election year candidates who are sitting MPs can freely produce material of an election-type nature and have it paid for by the taxpayer and not have it count towards election expenses, yet anybody contesting that view is caught by the Electoral Finance Act and cannot produce such material without it being taken into the spending cap; and if it is different for MPs compared with non-MPs, where is the level playing field?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I said in reply to the member’s second question, this is about defining and differentiating between—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s about cheating and saving your own bacon.

Hon MARK BURTON: Oh, for goodness’ sake! I wish that Dr Smith, just for once, in one question, could be quiet. This is about differentiating between the legitimate and proper business of a member of Parliament, or a party, going about their proper business as a member of Parliament, or as a parliamentary party, and those who are candidates, parties, or third parties in an electoral process.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that if the Labour Party produces a pledge card in 2008, that pledge card can be paid for by taxpayers’ money, distributed throughout the country to the letterboxes of the nation, but not get caught by the spending cap that will be imposed by the Electoral Finance Bill, but that if somebody else who is not in Parliament went through the same exercise—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Surely a member should be required to assembly his thoughts before he gets up, opens his mouth, and just talks and talks. That is precisely what his offence is, and he has got away with it for far too long.

Madam SPEAKER: I understand the point of order, and we can all hope that such an activity would take place by all members in this House. But I have noticed today—whether it is because it is Thursday, I do not know—that supplementary questions and answers are becoming increasingly longer. I ask the member to please ask his question as succinctly as he can.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is my understanding that if a member wants to make a personal explanation, he or she should seek leave to do so.

Madam SPEAKER: The member knows that that was not a point of order, so let us proceed.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that if the Labour Party produces a pledge card in 2008, distributes it around the nation, and pays for it with taxpayer funding, that will not be caught by the Electoral Finance Act, but that if another party, not represented in Parliament, produces a similar pledge card, then it would be caught by the Electoral Finance Act and that material would be part of its spending cap?

Hon MARK BURTON: I can confirm that the current provision of the Electoral Act 1993 is continued in this legislation. It clearly offered—

Hon Bill English: It is?

Hon MARK BURTON: For goodness’ sake! Mr English should read it. If one reads clauses 80 and 81 of the bill, one will find the precise provisions. The provisions of the Electoral Act are carried over. Those legitimate matters conducted by parties and MPs going about their proper parliamentary business are not covered by this legislation, but the business of candidates, parties, and third parties in campaigns is.

Energy Safety—Reports

4. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister of Energy: What reports, if any, has he received on the Government’s Energy Strategy?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): I have seen many reports supporting the Government’s view that renewables are affordable. The Energy Strategy confirms the Government’s view that all new generation should be renewable except to the extent needed to ensure security of supply. To aid the transition to more renewables we have sent a message to State-owned enterprises that we do not want more baseload thermal, and we are also considering amendments to the Electricity Act to similar effect. These steps, together with a national policy statement under the Resource Management Act, will help achieve our 90 percent renewables target in the electricity sector. New Zealand has a competitive advantage in renewables, and we are determined to seize that opportunity.

Steve Chadwick: What principles underlie the significant step up in energy efficiency in the strategy?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The fundamental principle is that we as a country should invest in efficiency where this is cheaper than more energy, including environmental externalities.

This strategy includes the best cost-benefit analysis we have ever had. Thanks are due to the Electricity Commission, as well as to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Economic Development for their parts in that. Improved energy efficiency will make us wealthier, because it reduces our ongoing energy costs, and has many ancillary benefits, including improved health. It is also crucial to achieving our environmental and sustainability goals, and I am confident that, with the help of the efficiency conservation strategy, we will achieve significant advances for our citizens.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister accept that there is a gap between the rhetoric of the energy strategy and the record of his Government, which has seen the percentage of electricity generated from renewable sources fall to an all-time low of 62 percent, has seen the use of coal increase by three times, from 4 percent to 12 percent, and the Government itself directly build the oil-fired Whirinaki power station, and give gas supply guarantees to Genesis for its E3P plant; or is the strategy just something you say you might do, but in fact not what you do?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I do not. I am very confident that we will achieve the objectives set out in the strategy, and, further, a lot of the criticisms that we hear from National go very close to criticising the profitability of Solid Energy. Now, I know that in recent weeks National has said that it will flog off State-owned enterprises, but it really is the first time that I have heard National say that we should reduce their profits so we can flog them off cheaply. We really are determined to achieve increases in renewables, decreases in greenhouse gases—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s gone backwards for 8 years!

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, Dr Smith, it is not going backwards. Dr Smith in the last couple of months has, of course, misled the House by telling us that we are burning more coal this year, when in fact we are burning less.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is surely unacceptable for a member to allege that someone has misled the House when the fact is that the Opposition member has been able to table material in the House that verifies the claim is correctly made that the use of coal for energy production in this country has increased three times under the Labour Government.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: That is clearly a debating point, not a point of order.

Madam SPEAKER: If the member takes exception, then the matter will be dealt with.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the Government’s own climate change document, which shows a threefold increase in the amount of greenhouse gases coming from the electricity sector.

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

Hon DAVID PARKER: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is the New Zealand Energy Strategy to 2050.

Leave granted.

Hon DAVID PARKER: The second document refers to the comments by Dr Nick Smith when he misrepresented the facts in saying that coal usage last year went up, when, in actual fact, it went down.

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

Peter Brown: Noting that one of the aims stated this morning is to improve the efficiency of appliances, has the Minister given any thought at all to restricting the purchase or use of plasma flat-screen TVs, as apparently the Australians are considering?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I am not aware of any such proposal. I am, though, aware from comments that Jeanette Fitzsimons emphasised this morning that some of the most cost-effective gains in energy efficiency have been from measures that the Government has already taken to knock off the least efficient appliances coming into the country. I think, from memory, that the cost to taxpayers was something like $3 million for those new efficiency standards and that already the energy savings for consumers have exceeded $60 million—I think those were the two figures.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister agree that the measures in the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy that he and I launched this morning, providing for better urban planning, better facilities for walking and cycling, more priority for public transport, and a 10 percent reduction in single-person car trips in cities, will contribute substantially to reducing the congestion in Auckland described in yesterday’s New Zealand Herald article?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Just as Dr Cullen acknowledged in his answer to an earlier question, those things will make a material, positive difference in reducing congestion, as will the significant amounts that have been spent to unlock the roading network.

Heather Roy: Has the Minister seen any reports critical of the ministry’s biofuels strategy in light of Fred Pearce of the New Scientist reporting that biofuels will trash rainforests, suck water reserves dry, kill off species, worst of all, barely slow down global warming, and that the overall benefits are far from conclusive; and will he concede that the main benefactors of Labour’s biofuel plans will be wealthy American farming lobbyists?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I certainly would not concede the latter point. I do agree that we need to take care with biofuels that we do not, as we fix one environmental and social problem, cause another. To that end the Government has put increased emphasis on sustainability guidelines relating to biofuels, at the behest of the Greens but, I am sure, supported by other parties, as well.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I seek leave to table the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy that was launched this morning.

Leave granted.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table a chart showing the increased emissions that have come from coal-generated electricity under the Government, given the denial from the Minister.

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

Taito Phillip Field—Ingram Report

5. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by his statement to the House on Thursday, 24 August last year: “I expect the public to believe the findings of the Ingram report”; if so, why?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: Yes, the Minister stands by his full statement to the House on Thursday, 24 August last year, which was: “I expect the public to believe the findings of the Ingram report, which was quite clear on that matter.”

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that the Minister told Parliament in answer to a question on 24 August last year: “The Ingram report makes clear that Mr Field may have committed some errors of judgment … The Prime Minister concurs with that view and so do I.”; if so, given the recent High Court judgment, does he still concur with that view, or has he changed his mind?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes and yes.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that the Minister confirmed to Parliament, in answer to a question on 28 February this year, that he had reviewed the immigration matters contained in the Ingram report, which he said “… I have read on a number of occasions,”; if so, precisely what steps has he taken to further review those immigration matters, given that the High Court judgment states: “Several witnesses now say they gave false evidence to the Ingram inquiry at the respondent’s request.”?

Hon RUTH DYSON: In my view, those matters have been thoroughly traversed, not just in the Ingram report but also before Parliament. The matters that the member is alluding to are now in the hands of the police, and that is the appropriate response.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that the High Court judgment of Justice Randerson brings into question some of the conclusions of the Ingram report; if so, does the Minister still claim that the former Associate Minister, Damien O’Connor, was not told by his private secretary of the information she had on Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with the Thai tiler in Samoa, when she gave four conflicting statements to the Ingram inquiry, and Ingram found “real uncertainty results from the available evidence as to when Mr O’Connor became aware of the allegations in relation to Mr Field.”?

Hon RUTH DYSON: As the Minister has replied to similar questions from the member on a number of occasions, that specific matter has been thoroughly traversed in the Ingram report, and in his view the conclusions that Mr Ingram was able to reach stand.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: If the Minister has reviewed the immigration matters contained in the Ingram report—he claims to have read it on a number of occasions—is the claim in this House by his Labour colleague Russell Fairbrother: “This is a report that Mr Field can wave around as a tribute to his integrity …” consistent with the findings of his review?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility for what Mr Fairbrother said on this matter. I think, more generally speaking—and I have been listening very carefully—that one has to be extraordinarily careful with a question line that is, first, coming perilously close to asking a Minister to comment on a judge’s decision, particularly when notice has been given that the decision may be appealed, and, secondly, perilously close to putting Mr Field on trial, which is not the function of this House.

Hon Bill English: I think that is a spurious point of order, Madam Speaker. If you rule that that question was out of order, then you would certainly have to rule that the questions asked by Mr Peters earlier on about events 10 years ago were out of order. You let those questions go, so it would seem that this question would have to get through, as well. In respect of the other matters, Dr Cullen is simply trying to scare members of Parliament from asking questions that they are legitimately able to ask. It is not a matter of a trial of Mr Field, or of questioning the judgment of the High Court; it is a matter of asking Ministers about statements they made to this House on this matter over a period of 12 months. Dr Cullen should not try to stop Parliament from addressing those issues.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I do not stop Parliament from doing its legitimate role, but I will certainly intervene if there is any suggestion that this House will get into commenting on judicial decisions, particularly in the circumstance we are in at the moment where Mr Field has indicated that he intends to appeal that decision, and therefore we might be affecting the outcome of that appeal. Also, we are in a position where, willingly or not, we are starting to get into areas where it is possible that we may affect Mr Field’s trial. As he rightly questioned the other day, he has a right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, the member’s first point is utterly wrong. The fact that objection was not taken to something said previously is no reason for you to rule out objection being taken to something said currently.

Taito Phillip Field: I take exception to the reflection on my character in terms of the line of questioning that we have heard this afternoon, and I support the point of order that has been put forward. Also, on the assertion about the Ingram report and the question of an error of judgment, I want to say that there is nothing in the Ingram report that suggests an error of judgment. Regardless of whether the gentleman, or anybody else, wants to say that in the House, and to try to put that that is part of the Ingram report, it is actually inaccurate. I support the point of order that has been raised by Dr Cullen. Also, I would like to say that I object to this line of questioning. It is a reflection on my person, and I would ask the member to withdraw and apologise, as well.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Could I just point out the substance of my question. The Minister has claimed in this House on at least four occasions previously that he has reviewed the immigration matters contained in the Ingram report. I am now asking whether, having done that, his findings in that review are consistent with a statement made by a Labour member of Parliament in this House.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I come back to the point I originally raised: the Minister has no responsibility for statements made by members of Parliament, whether they are Labour members or any other member. He is responsible only for statements made by the Minister previously.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank members. I think this is a serious matter. I have been listening very closely to the questions and the answers, and I am going to take them under consideration as to what rulings should be made in the future on matters that are before the court and are under appeal. In the matter at the particular moment, however, I think that if the member does confine his questions to the ministerial responsibility, then those questions will be fine. I am not clear precisely what the statement was that Mr Field sought to be withdrawn and apologised for, because at the moment the questioning is not directly related to the member. It is related to the Minister and matters relating to the Minister’s responsibility. So I do not think it is appropriate at this moment that the member should be asked to withdraw and apologise.

Taito Phillip Field: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The concern I have is the line of questioning we have had for 2 years now, and the repetition of those questions. Some of the language that is being used is a reflection on my person, which is against the Standing Orders. That is the concern I have. I also want clarification from you, Madam Speaker, about the number of times a question can be asked in this House over a very long period of time—the repetition of those questions. Perhaps you could clarify that.

Madam SPEAKER: Members are entitled to be as repetitious as they like. As long as they comply with the Standing Orders, they are perfectly within their rights to ask those questions. But it is the more general question that I wish to consider, I think. It is difficult for members when matters are before the courts and, at the same time, there is ministerial responsibility.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a good idea for you to take this matter under consideration, but it is our understanding that it is not, in fact, before the court. A decision has been made, and there has been an expression of an intention to appeal, but that has not actually occurred, and the police have not yet laid charges. We just want to be sure that, as part of your consideration, the facts of the matter about the legal process are quite clear.

Madam SPEAKER: I am aware of that. I know that no charges have been laid, and I know there has been speculation about an appeal, but it is certainly true that the matter is current, is relevant, and is not 10 years old.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: If the Minister has reviewed the immigration matters contained in the Ingram report—and he claims to have read it on a number of occasions—is the claim in this House by his Labour colleague Russell Fairbrother: This is a report that Mr Field can wave around as a tribute to his integrity,” consistent with the findings of his review?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I support the right of my parliamentary colleagues to contribute in whatever way they think is appropriate. I am not responsible for their contribution.

Violent Crimes—Police Capacity

6. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Police: Can she confirm that violent offences have increased by 32 percent since 1999-2000, and is she satisfied that the Police have the capacity to address this?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police): Violent crime in New Zealand as in other countries has been increasing year on year for a number of years. However, the rate of the most violent offence of homicide remains relatively consistent over the period. Since 1999-2000 the increase in recorded violent offences per head of population has been 22 percent, or around 2.7 percent on average each year. A large driver of recorded violence has been the increased recording of domestic violence offences. For example, between 2005-06 and 2006-07 domestic violence offences increased by 11.2 percent while non-domestic violence offences increased by 0.6 percent. I am satisfied that the police have the capacity to address violent offences, as evidenced by the increase in the resolution rate of violent crime. That rate went from 77.3 percent in 1999-2000 to 81.2 percent in 2006-07.

Simon Power: How can the Minister continue to claim that increased reporting of domestic violence explains the increase in violent crime when offences have increased across all categories of violent crime, including those violent offences that are not normally domestic in nature, such as the 55 percent increase in robberies and the 64 percent increase in group assembly violent crimes?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I make no excuses for the increase in violent crime in New Zealand. As I said, violent crime has been increasing in this country for many years. I make no excuse for that, but I do applaud the fact that we have more women in particular who are prepared to report domestic violence than we have ever seen before. In fact, the number of recorded offences of domestic violence has more than doubled over the last decade, and so has the number of the prosecutions for domestic violence over the last decade. I would hope that members of this House would welcome that. I am concerned—as every member of this House should be—about the increases in non-domestic violence—public violence. Violence is everyone’s issue. It is not just a police issue. One of the issues that comes up when we look at those statistics is the involvement of alcohol in most violent crimes. That is an issue that this House ought to consider very seriously, because it is not one that the police have a lot of control over. It is something that we as a community certainly have attitudes about.

Simon Power: Does the Minister stand by Labour’s 1999 pledge card promise to “crack down on youth crime” in light of the fact that violent offences by 14 to 16-year-olds have increased by 47 percent since 1999, including a 40 percent increase in serious assaults and a staggering 143 percent increase in grievous assaults?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Cracking down means that we actually go out and police youth crime—we go out and police youth crime. If we go out and police youth crime, we are likely to catch the young criminals. I can only assume that the member is saying: “Don’t catch them. Therefore you don’t know what the level is. Therefore it’s OK.”.

Jill Pettis: What impact would reducing the number of police by up to 500 have on their ability to address violence in the community?

Hon ANNETTE KING: It would have a considerable impact, and it was National’s proposed answer to violence in 1999. It would have represented a decrease of 7 percent in the number of front-line officers. This Government has increased police sworn numbers by 1,154 between November 1999 and the end of September 2007. That is a 16 percent increase in police officers. Between now and June 2009, when the full effect of the arrangement between New Zealand First and Labour comes into effect, the New Zealand Police will have grown by in excess of a further 500 police officers—a total increase of 23 percent in terms of police officers in this country. I would put that record alongside anything that the National Party could offer.

Simon Power: Does the Minister stand by her claims that increases in violent offences are due to an increase in reporting when her predecessor, George Hawkins, stated in 2005 that claims of under-reporting were intemperate, misleading, and just plain wrong; and if crime rates ever fall, will she decry the decline in reporting?

Hon ANNETTE KING: One has to have crimes reported to know that one actually has them. This is just a common fact.

Simon Power: Oh!

Hon ANNETTE KING: I say to the member that he should go back and look at his question. It was so stupid. Crimes have to be reported—so we know we have them.

Simon Power: Has the Minister read the report by Dave George into the standards of police recruits, which was due at the end of last month and which has a major bearing on the capacity of police to bring the crime rate down—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speed it up!

Simon Power: —wake up—if so, do the results of that report suggest that the answers the Prime Minister gave to the House on 25 June, to the effect that new recruits did better on mental ability tests than serving officers, were based on inaccurate information from police human resources manager Wayne Annan?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I say to the member that I read the report last night. If the member would like to wait until 3.30 today, he will find out that I am releasing it less than 24 hours after I got it.

Nuclear Disarmament and Non-proliferation—United Nations

7. H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) to the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control: What steps will New Zealand be taking at the United Nations this month to promote nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control): Over the next 4 weeks at the first committee of the United Nations General Assembly, New Zealand will lead a number of initiatives promoting disarmament. The key initiatives include resolutions calling for the removal of nuclear weapons from high alert or launch-on-warning status, the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, support for a Southern Hemisphere nuclear-weapon-free zone, and a broad resolution with our New Agenda Coalition partners calling for progress towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

H V Ross Robertson: Which countries will be co-sponsoring calling for the removal of nuclear weapons currently on high alert, and why is the resolution important?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Sweden, Chile, Switzerland, and Nigeria have so far joined with New Zealand as lead co-sponsors of that particular resolution. The resolution is important because, as disclosed by the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission last year, one of the greatest risks of nuclear catastrophe comes from the estimated thousands of nuclear weapons on high alert. Such weapons could be launched in minutes in response to the perception of an attack, which might, in fact, be the result of something caused by technical malfunction, accident, or act of terrorism. De-alerting would certainly reduce the risk of nuclear conflict by allowing more time for communication and avoidance of misunderstanding or miscalculation. I think that is important, and I hope New Zealand is able to attract very strong support for that resolution.

H V Ross Robertson: What progress has been made towards disarmament and non-proliferation at the UN and elsewhere over recent years?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Despite the overwhelming support across the international community for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction—for example, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty gets supported at the UN by 175 votes for to just two against—it is disappointing that progress towards disarmament has been very slow. Certainly, we can welcome the fact that there has been a sharp reduction in nuclear weapons from their peak at the time of the Cold War of around 70,000. The estimated 27,000 nuclear warheads that remain, still pose the risk of catastrophic consequences if used. That risk is increased with the proliferation of nuclear weapons control to further countries. That is why New Zealand will continue its efforts to promote not simply non-proliferation but also disarmament. To be successful, however, that will require a change in attitude on the part of the nuclear weapons States.

Childcare—Licensing

8. PAULA BENNETT (National) to the Minister of Education: Are crèches at pools, gyms, Sunday schools, and at-home babysitters now all required to be licensed; if so, why?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) on behalf of the Minister of Education: Creches at pools, gyms, and Sunday schools have had to be licensed since 1989. At-home babysitters have never had to be licensed. The regulations are designed to keep children safe. As I have already made clear in answer to questions from the member and her colleagues, the regulations are currently under review, and anyone with a view on this matter is encouraged to make a submission.

Paula Bennett: Will the ministry be contacting babysitters in their homes to tell them to be licensed?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Perhaps it would assist the member if I could repeat the answer to the primary question, which clearly she has missed. At-home babysitters have never had to be licensed.

Paula Bennett: Did the ministry phone a Nelson woman, who had lost her job after the gym creche she worked at was closed down, at her home on 27 September and tell her she was breaking the law by babysitting children in her home, and what is next—will neighbours and grandparents who babysit children have to become qualified and licensed centres?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I think it is hugely ironic that over the last few weeks the National Party has been kicking up a frenzy about unqualified and unsuitable teachers who are in charge of our classrooms, and now the member is advocating that anybody can have care of our children without any regulatory protection at all.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member’s question, which affected a constituent of mine who was phoned by the ministry, was very specific and asked whether the ministry phoned this woman, who had lost her job as a consequence of the ministry closing down her creche, and told her that she was unable to babysit children at her home. I listened to the Minister’s answer. She was making no attempt whatsoever to answer it.

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. The Minister was taking a very long time to get to the point of her answer. I ask her to please complete her answer.

Hon RUTH DYSON: I have completed it.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, would the member please then repeat her answer.

Hon RUTH DYSON: The point I was making was that babysitters in the home have not ever been required to be licensed, and are not now. If the member is advocating that children are cared for by parents in creches that do not have qualified staff with supervisory skills, then it is totally in opposition to the position Katherine Rich has been whipping up a frenzy about, up and down the country, concerning unqualified, untrained, and unsuitable teachers being in charge of our children. The member needs to make up her mind. Does she want our children to be safe, or not?

Madam SPEAKER: The question did relate to a specific case. Would the Minister please address that case.

Hon RUTH DYSON: The issue is about whether the person in question was operating a creche or babysitting, and that was the response I appropriately gave in answer to that question.

Moana Mackey: What steps has the Government taken to increase access to quality early childhood education?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Under the Labour-led Government we have made huge progress towards making quality early childhood education available to every New Zealand child. We have created approximately 5,400 early childhood places through the discretionary grants scheme, increased the number of qualified early childhood teachers, introduced a funding system that acknowledges cost drivers for centres, reviewed regulations to make them more clear and transparent, and introduced 20 hours a week free early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds. This policy, I note, is under threat from National, which opposes it.

Paula Bennett: Has the Minister already approved an exemption as stated by the Ministry of Education’s southern manager, Coralanne Child that “One change that is confirmed for next year is the introduction of an exemption from regulations for centres such as gym creches, provided they operate for no more than 4 hours per week.”; if so, will the Minister now be setting the timetable for when these parents can exercise—does she suggest that opening one morning a week, or for 1 hour four times a week, is suitable?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The regulations have been in place since 1989. They are under review. I urge the member, if she has a positive contribution to make, to do so. It is my view that parents should be able to exercise and should also know that their children are safe at that time.

Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that the question I asked was incredibly to the point. It was not answered at all. I asked whether the Minister has already approved an exemption.

Madam SPEAKER: I listened carefully because I anticipated that would be the case. I think the Minister in this case did address the question.

Paula Bennett: If the Minister can approve an exemption of 4 hours a week without a whole lot of palaver, then why cannot the ministry just let some common sense prevail and put some basic safety precautions in place and let these parents decide when they will exercise and who will look after their own children?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The exemptions are outlined in the regulatory regime that has been in place since 1989. If creches meet the conditions for an exemption, then I consider they should apply.

Paula Bennett: I seek the leave of the House to table the Nelson Mail article that says “Babysitter steps in to help gym mums”.

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

Body Armour—Purchasing and Supply

9. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister of Police: Is she satisfied with the police’s handling of the purchase and roll-out of stab-resistant body armour; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police): As I have said on a number of occasions, I have not been entirely satisfied with the handling of that project; nor has the New Zealand Police. As the member knows, this project was taken over by Deputy Commissioner of Police Rob Pope and is now back on track, with a December 2007 date remaining for the final roll-out.

Ron Mark: Has she received details of the Auditor-General’s inquiries into the purchase, which revealed that instead of allowing the manufacturer, Aegis, which knew what it was doing, to measure the vests and guarantee under contract a 99 percent success rate with the fit at no risk to the police, the police decided to try to save money by doing the measuring themselves and to accept the full financial risk of any mistakes made—a decision that resulted in a $2.7 million blow-out, with no ability to recover those costs from Aegis?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The member is correct. One of the issues that I think was incorrect was the initial measurement discrepancy. That has already been identified at the select committee by Deputy Commissioner of Police Rob Pope. It does not mean that the vests will not be used. As has already been pointed out by the police, the vest have been purchased and will be used for appropriately sized police. I also know that the Auditor-General’s office has looked at this issue and has informed the New Zealand Police that it believes it has learnt lessons from the process and does not believe any further action is required.

Ron Mark: Why, when professionals who are expert in the manufacture of body armour offered, for a small fee, to come out to New Zealand to conduct all the measuring, and offered to accept full responsibility for any errors made—to meet all costs of that; to replace all incorrectly fitting vests at no cost to the police—did the police say “No, we can do it better than them. We can save the pittance.”; and when the costs of getting it wrong are, and have been, so great, why would one turn such an offer down?

Hon ANNETTE KING: All I can say to the member is that that was an unwise decision by the former person in charge of this project, and, as the member knows, that person is no longer in charge of the project.

Ron Mark: Does the Minister agree that rather than the contract being well measured, well fitted, and containing no slack and no slop, the cloth from which this contract was cut was found to be wanting, and the police have totally stitched themselves up and managed to do what no one else could, which is to make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I commend the member on the obvious time he has taken to write that question. I think there is an element of truth in it. This project was not well handled. I have to say, however, that since Deputy Commissioner of Police Rob Pope took it over when he became deputy commissioner, it has been on track, and it will be completed by December 2007.

Simon Power: Why are some police officers still waiting on stab-resistant vests, when all operational fisheries officers have been issued with them?

Hon Phil Goff: Waited for 9 years and got nothing out of that!

Hon ANNETTE KING: Can I just commend my colleague’s interjection, which is true. For the member’s sake, I say I think there are considerably more police officers than fisheries officers. In fact, 6,114 police officers have vests. I do not think we have as many fisheries officers as that. The police intend to ensure that all front-line officers are wearing them, and they will have them by December.

Water—Sustainable Water Programme of Action

10. Hon DAVID CARTER (National) to the Minister of Agriculture: Is he satisfied with the progress of the Sustainable Water Programme of Action?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture): No, I am not fully satisfied. The Sustainable Water Programme of Action is a comprehensive attempt to improve the way that New Zealand manages its fresh water. This is not a trivial exercise. It involves deep and complex issues that go to the heart of our economy and our consciousness as New Zealanders. Issues such as the supply, quality, and accessibility of water are intergenerational matters. They do not arise suddenly, and they are not fixed quickly when they do.

Hon David Carter: Is the Minister aware that his second most senior Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry official, Paul Reynolds, the Assistant Director-General, said at a public meeting last month in Rotorua that the programme should be known as the “Water Programme of Inaction”, and what would such a senior official make such a statement for?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I think even the most talented and valuable public servants are entitled to a bad day at the office.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: What other Government activity contributes to advancing the objectives of the Sustainable Water Programme of Action?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: The Government has a proud record of investing in projects and programmes that contribute to improving water management towards New Zealand’s future generations. Twenty-two million dollars a year is currently invested in freshwater research through the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology. Since its inception the Sustainable Farming Fund has provided over $22 million to 30 project teams working on projects to improve water quality management in the primary sectors, $36.7 million has been provided as the Government’s share of the Lake Taupō water quality protection programme, $4 million has been committed to the Ōhau channel diversion project to improve Lake Rotoiti’s water quality, and $2 million has been provided for the development of the Waitaki catchment plan. In addition to these initiatives, the recently announced sustainable land management and climate change plan of action will provide impetus to reducing sediment and nitrogen discharges to water.

Hon David Carter: Acknowledging the programme is going badly, why did the Minister then say in May 2006 that “we need this action to get moving”, and what has he actually done with this flagship Government initiative other than just talk about it?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: If the member was listening he heard what was going on about water quality, and I have to say that in the 9 years between 1990 and 1999 that the National Party was in Government it did nothing whatever about the supply, access, or quality of water in New Zealand.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister explain the advice given today to the Local Government and Environment Committee from the Auditor-General on the $200 million sustainable development programme of action launched in 2003, that the announced special Cabinet committee of Ministers never met, and their programme, which states, according to the Auditor-General: “Governance for the programme of action was less clear because of a lack of ministerial meetings.”; and how does he reconcile the Prime Minister mentioning the word “sustainability” 38 times with the fact that the ministerial group set to do it never met?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Far be it from me to make any criticism about the qualities of the Auditor-General in the areas of competence and expertise that he has. But I can tell the House and the Auditor-General, if he asks me, that I have personally been to innumerable meetings with other Ministers about the sustainable water quality project and I never saw the Auditor-General at any one of them. If he had actually asked me, I would have told him many there had been.

Hon David Carter: Is the Minister also aware of the further statement from Assistant Director-General, Paul Reynolds, that the Sustainable Water Programme of Action is “stalled at this juncture because our engagement with Māori has not run smoothly”, and does the Minister agree with Mr Reynolds?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: No, I have not heard of that, but I am sure that I will hear comment from Mr Reynolds at the pre-Cabinet meeting on Monday.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou. In progressing the Sustainable Water Programme of Action, what legal grounds does the Government rely on to assert that it owns water?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: The Government does not say that it owns water. Water is, in the Government’s view, a public resource and is dealt with on that basis.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the report of Controller and Auditor-General on the Government’s sustainable development programme of action.

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

Te Ururoa Flavell: What is the Government’s position regarding customary ownership of resources such as water, as set out in Article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Madam SPEAKER: I am seeking the ministerial responsibility, but yes—the Hon Jim Anderton.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: The Government’s view is, of course, that there are many areas of common interest, particularly in terms of customary issues with Māori aspirations for fresh water, and the Government’s goals of the water programme. An example of that is the need to halt over time the despoliation of water and the decline in water quality in our lowland rivers and lakes. We believe that fruitful and important discussions and consultations have to go on with Māoridom, and those are in progress as we speak.

Question No. 9 to Minister

RON MARK (NZ First): I apologise—I should have done this earlier—but I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from the Controller and Auditor-General regarding a request for an inquiry into the purchase of stab-resistant body armour.

Leave granted.

Courts—Facilities

11. MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) to the Minister for Courts: What has he done to improve court facilities?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts): Last month the Minister of Māori Affairs, Parekura Horomia, and I opened the refurbished Tai Rāwhiti Māori Land Court. This is the fifth Māori Land Court to be refurbished, the others being in Christchurch, Wellington, Rotorua, and Hastings. In addition, work is occurring at Hastings, Palmerston North, and Taupō District Courts, work is set to begin at Nelson, Timaru, and Invercargill, the Auckland District Court, and at Whangarei, and, in time, the Manukau and Levin courts are high on the lists. In the past 12 months, I have opened two new courthouses, one in Greymouth and one in Queenstown, as well as the fully refurbished Blenheim court. In response to this member’s constant advocacy, the Hamilton court is also being looked at. It is fair to say the achievements of this Labour-led Government have eclipsed any of the previous Government’s in this area.

Martin Gallagher: What other improvements are being made, and has he seen any reports outlining alternative approaches to managing our courts?

Hon RICK BARKER: As well as a huge programme of investment in restoring our courthouses after a decade of neglect and cutbacks in real money terms under National, the Labour-led Government is making huge strides in all-round performance improvement. I recently announced that e-filing is under way, with savings of over 2,000 reams of paper a year, demonstrating Labour’s commitment to introducing sustainable business practice. As well, there is videoconferencing, digital audio recording, Pay or Stay, improvements in the infringement system, the service improvement programme, more judges, more courtrooms, better facilities, and better information technology infrastructure, and the list goes on. Labour has a policy programme and we are delivering on it. However, I have seen reports showing that National still has no idea. It is waiting with no policy, except mutterings from National’s Simon Power calling for greater investment in the system, while Kate Wilkinson says there should be no more investment as it will not do anything. We are left with one conclusion: National still has not got a clue and will end up saying that whatever Labour says is right, because Labour has got the ideas.

Kate Wilkinson: Does the Minister’s failure to answer my written question No. 13961, which was lodged over 2 months ago and sought updated waiting times for courts, mean that he is embarrassed because the figures are worse than the previous averages of 290 days for the High Court and 256 days for the District Court; or can he not say when I will get an answer because, as he has stated: “Predictions are always difficult, particularly when they are about the future.”?

Hon RICK BARKER: I will take time to track down question No. 13961, but I can tell the member that there is a very good story to be told about our court system. In the Auckland High Court, jury trial disposals have improved by 10 percent—that is a 10 percent improvement in efficiency. In the District Court, jury trial disposals have improved by 8 percent, and, in the Auckland District Court, by 13 percent. Criminal summary disposals have increased by 8 percent. These are exceptionally good figures.

Mining Permits—Macdonald Investments Ltd

12. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) to the Associate Minister of Energy: Is he satisfied with his and Crown Minerals’ handling of the recent mining permit application 50100 from Macdonald Investments Ltd; if so, why?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy): Yes, and I also think the people of the West Coast deserve to know whether that member supports development of resources on the West Coast and local jobs, or not.

Chris Auchinvole: How many non-compliance notifications did Crown Minerals issue to Macdonald Investments?

Hon Harry Duynhoven: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Due to the noise, I could not hear the first bit. Could the member begin the question again, please?

Madam SPEAKER: I know that it has been a long time for members to sit in their seats but would they please keep the level of noise down, so we can hear.

Chris Auchinvole: How many non-compliance notifications did Crown Minerals issue to Macdonald Investments Ltd regarding its previous exploration permit on the West Coast of the South Island, given that section 39 of the Crown Minerals Act requires the Minister to revoke a permit if the holder does not comply with the agreed conditions?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: First, I think the member should be accurate in what he says in his questions. The permit had not yet reached the end of its period. However, there were three issues: Macdonald Investments Ltd had 22 work obligations to comply with in its exploration permit. It did not comply with three of those obligations. These were to complete a review of drilling requirements of work on Dobson and Rapahoe, to drill the Fosters Farm prospect, and to re-enter Card Creek-1. I am advised there was a change of technical management at Macdonald Investments Ltd, which led to a review of what was considered to be best practice, in order to advance towards mining of this resource.

Maryan Street: What work programme is in place to ensure that petroleum mining permit 50100 is being actively worked?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: An active work programme has been set up for this permit. The permit holder is required to drill two core wells within 24 months in the central area, and within 36 months the permit holder will acquire, process, and interpret at least 10 kilometres of 2D seismic data, and drill one core hole within the southern area of the permit, in addition. There are also ongoing work programme commitments to be delivered at 48 months, 60 months, and 84 months. All of this work will occur as a result of the decision to award a mining permit.

Chris Auchinvole: Has the “new and very able geologist” employed by Macdonald Investments—a point that persuaded the Minister to approve the mining application—ever worked in New Zealand before, and did he declare any conflict of interest when writing in support of Macdonald Investments’ mining permit application?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I do not know about the latter, but given the member has tried on many occasions to insinuate that something untoward is going on, in that I as Minister approved the mining permit, can I tell the member that the reason I approved the mining permit is that I was advised to do so by officials. The reason I was personally interested is that this was the first time a coal-seam gas permit for mining had been applied for in New Zealand. That may be why the company has chosen to employ a specialist in coal-seam gas mining, from Australia.

Chris Auchinvole: Did he check, before granting Macdonald Investments this extremely valuable mining permit, whether its claimed commercial discovery had been subject to an independent review, or did he simply take the company’s word for it?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: Given the company itself has to outlay its own resources, its own cash, to do its own mining, in its permit area, I do not see why I should second-guess the company, when it puts up a proposal for work, which is accepted by my officials who recommended that I sign the permit—because the company takes the risk. If the member is proposing that the Crown should take the risk, I suggest he moves to Albania.

Dr Pita Sharples: What involvement has there been with Kati Waewae and Makāwhio, mana whenua of Te Tai Poutini, to discuss heritage issues as per the requirements defined by Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 for minimum impact activities?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: What I can tell the member is that, first, if he likes to put down a written question, I will give the detail of that answer. Second, under the minerals permitting regime that we run in New Zealand, Crown Minerals has a responsibility to go out to local iwi, long before a permit is established, to liaise with iwi about the issues they may have in relation to any particular area. I would assume that has been done, because it has always been done in the past with areas. But if the member sets down a written question, I undertake to give him a detail of the answer of how, when, and why.

Questions to Members

Electoral Finance Bill—Oral Submissions

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: When were the persons who provided oral evidence to the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Electoral Finance Bill on 17 September 2007 told of the time that they would be appearing before the committee?

LYNNE PILLAY (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): When they were contacted by committee staff.

Christopher Finlayson: Can she confirm that on the morning of 17 September a submitter was phoned, told he had to give oral evidence that morning but was not advised of the time he had to do so, and then was phoned back 30 minutes later by the committee clerk, who asked that his oral evidence be presented immediately; and how is such shambolic organisation fair to members of the public who want to make a submission to a select committee?

LYNNE PILLAY: No, I cannot confirm that. If Mr Finlayson had any concerns about that, he should have raised them in the committee. I find the committee staff are extremely hard-working and efficient, and I really take issue with political point-scoring by that member in this House.

Madam SPEAKER: We have a supplementary question. This is the last one. The normal practice is there are only two.

Martin Gallagher: Can the chairperson confirm that the questioner is indeed the deputy chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee; if he is, why has he not raised these issues personally with staff and other members of the committee, instead of wasting the time of this House?

Madam SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order, but the second is not.

LYNNE PILLAY: I can confirm that the member is the deputy chairperson of the select committee.

ENDS

© Scoop Media