(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

THURSDAY, 25 MARCH 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research—Annual Temperature Data

1. JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology: Does he stand by his statement in his corrected answer to parliamentary question 19275 (2009) asking for “the full data on which NIWA’s official time series of the mean annual temperature over New Zealand from 1853 to 2008 is based”, that “links to this data are collated on the following website www.niwa.co.nz” under the heading “New Zealand temperature rise clear”; if not, why not?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research, Science and Technology): The answer is yes. I should note that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research website is being updated to make it easier for people to get information about the New Zealand temperature records. The relevant information is now contained on the web page headed “NZ temperature record”, which states in the first sentence: “There are many lines of evidence supporting NIWA’s conclusion that New Zealand has warmed by 1.0 deg C since 1900.”

John Boscawen: Which, if any, of the following statements is false: the claim in the link he gave that the Kelburn site readings were adjusted downwards because “the Kelburn site is on average 0.8 degrees cooler than Thorndon because of the extra height above sea level”; his claim in Parliament on 17 February that “the Wellington site has been moved from Thorndon to Kelburn, a difference in height of 125 metres. That requires adjustment.”; or his answer to written question No. 1313 (2010) that “adjustments are not made on the basis of elevation differences, either for Wellington or for any of the other six locations.”?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: I note in answer to that question that parliamentary question No. 1313 (2010) says in its closing paragraph that one of the reasons why there had to be an adjustment was, in fact, due to the change of altitude between Thorndon and Kelburn, the effect of which is a well-known fact of climate science.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect, it might be that the Minister cannot answer the question, which should be the answer. But it cannot be said that his answer stands when he said precisely that the institute did not make an adjustment because of the elevation. That was the point of the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I hesitate to ask the member to repeat the question; it was a very long question. But if I recollect the question accurately, it asked which of the following statements was incorrect. In answering it the Minister focused on the third statement, if I recollect correctly, that Mr Boscawen made. But he appeared to be disputing that statement in his answer, and the Minister is at liberty to do that. There are further supplementary questions, and I will listen very carefully to make sure that they are answered. I accept that this is a straightforward question that the member is seeking information on.

Jacqui Dean: Why does the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research say that the temperature has increased by 1 degree Celsius since 1900?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: There are two key records in this area. The first is the NIWA ‘Seven- Station’ Temperature Series, which I note includes the Kelburn site. That dates back to 1853 for at least one of the records. The second key record is the eleven-station series, which dates back to 1930. The stations in the eleven-station series have not been moved and are largely located in the countryside. The information from the eleven-station series is the raw data. It has never been adjusted. It shows an increase of 1 degree Celsius since 1930. Ultimately, this issue is about the science and the data.

Hon Rodney Hide: Why did the Minister refer Parliament to the 1981 Jim Salinger doctoral thesis and tell Parliament that the original worksheets and computer records used to construct the New Zealand seven-station temperature series are no longer available, when the seven-station series was constructed at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research during the 1990s by Jim Salinger and others, and the adjusted series was published in a paper by National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research employees Zheng, Basher, and Thompson in 1997, with the graph and commentary posted onto the institute’s website in 2007; and how can we conclude anything other than that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research has something to hide and is being less than open with its Minister and, indeed, our Parliament?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: I have been advised by the institute that in relation to the information in Dr Salinger’s thesis of 1981, some of the material was in various computer records held at Victoria University. Apparently the computer records, per se, are not available as such, but of course Dr Salinger has this information comprehensively reported in his dissertation, as is the other information. I say this, because it is an important point: the institute is reassuring the public about the veracity of the research by doing a full review of the seven-station series, as has been stated in the House a number of times. It has already done it for Hokitika, and over the next 4 to 6 months it will do so for the other six stations. When that information is available, I suggest that it will be totally open for a robust scientific critique.

Hon Rodney Hide: Does he accept that the review of the seven-station series in itself is an admission of doubt about the official temperature record, or, even worse, that the much-heralded official series, which has been used for everything from sworn expert evidence to advisory booklets for local government, cannot be scientifically justified, that records have not been kept, that Ministers have been misdirected and misled, and that in part, as a result New Zealand is about to massively penalise itself with an emissions trading scheme that will impart huge costs on our country for no benefit; and will he support me in my call for an independent review of the institute’s work on climate change; if not, why not?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: The reason that the institute is doing the review of the seven-station series is that this is such an important series internationally as it extends back to 1843, and to comprehensively demonstrate the robustness of its work. The institute’s work will be fully open to robust scientific critique. I must also note, because this is a crucial point in the whole debate, that the eleven-station series, which dates from 1930, shows a temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius. That particular series has not been adjusted; it is totally dependent on the raw data itself. I finish on this point: the institute is spending a huge amount of time on ensuring that its website is sufficiently robust to enable people to access it and, indeed, ask the sorts of questions, dare I say it, that the member is asking.

Hon Rodney Hide: How can the Minister have confidence in the work done by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research on climate science, when the institute’s information has led Ministers to give wrong answers in the House, when the principal author was associated with the now utterly discredited British climate research unit, when other scientific authorities disagree with him, when the institute itself has no material available that can support the analysis underpinning its official series, when the principal author of the series has now been sacked, and

when the institute is having to review the series because it has no confidence in it, nor can it justify it or defend it?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: I think that the short answer is to look at the eleven-station series, which is actually unadjusted and shows an increase of 1 degree Celsius since 1930. At the end of the day, this issue will not be resolved by confident assertion but on the basis of the science.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very familiar with the elevenstation series, but my question was about how the Minister can have confidence in the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research. It was not about the series, and the Minister did not address the question of whether he had confidence in the institute. It may be that he does not, but he should actually answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: The dilemma is that when a member asks a question like that he or she is seeking an opinion, and the way in which the Minister responds to a question that seeks an opinion is really pretty much up to the Minister. I feel that the Minister addressed significant parts of the quite lengthy question that the member asked, and I think it would be unreasonable of me to try to pin him down to any more specific answer than that.

Question No. 2 to Minister

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I seek leave to have my question held over until the Prime Minister is available. He has been off the radar this week.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to have this question deferred. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.

Ministers—Confidence

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

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Hon Annette King: Does he agree with the Minister for Social Development and Employment that her welfare reforms, which breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, would not bother most people and that “it is a discrimination that most New Zealanders will see as being fair and reasonable.”; if so, why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes. If the Government chooses not to work test older women who have been on the widows benefit, I think most people would regard that as a fair amount of discrimination.

Hon Annette King: In light of that answer, why does he believe that the children of widows are more deserving of support from his Government than the children of widowers?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has made a series of decisions across a package known as Future Focus. It happens that the Attorney-General has made a statement to Parliament, according to the requirements of Parliament, that says that those changes are discriminatory. However, the Government is free under those procedures to proceed with its policy.

Hon Annette King: Does he agree with the Minister for Social Development and Employment, who said that there are jobs out there for everyone, or with Paul Henry, who said on Breakfast that if Paula Bennett believed that she was living in cloud-cuckoo-land?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The good news today is that the released economic figures show that the economy is growing and creating new jobs. It is an aspiration of this Government that everyone who is on welfare should be looking for work. Actually, quite a lot of them are finding work.

Hon Annette King: How can he have confidence in his Minister of State Services, who told this House last week that there were no plans to close the Blenheim Accident Compensation Corporation office, only for its closure to be announced today?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has great confidence in the Minister of State Services because he is a much better Minister of State Services than the previous Minister was.

Hon Annette King: I do not think the last part of the question—

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?

Hon Annette King: It is a point of order. I know it is a common practice of the Deputy Prime Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. With the nature of the questions being asked, inevitably there will be a political element to the answers. The member well knows that and she cannot use a point of order to say that.

Hon Annette King: Has he ensured that the Minister of Energy and Resources has consulted with the Minister of Tourism over the potential conflict of prospecting for minerals on Dun Mountain at the same time as he is advocating for a national cycleway through the same area?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes.

Hon Annette King: Which analogy is accurate: his comparison of Whānau Ora to a waterbed, or the comparison by the Minister of Energy and Resources of mining to a date scone?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Both analogies are, of course, appropriate. I am impressed with the talent of my colleagues. They are able to make cut-through statements that even the Opposition can understand.

Economy—Reports

3. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Today’s Statistics New Zealand release of the GDP figures for the December quarter shows that the economy grew by 0.8 percent. That is the third consecutive quarter of growth. The data suggests that the recession, which began in early 2008, bottomed out in the first half of 2009, and since then the economy has grown again at a moderate rate. This is consistent with a range of other indicators, and broadly mirrors the pattern of New Zealand’s trading partners. The lift in the economy will create jobs, though it is likely to be some time before we see a sustained drop in unemployment. That is why it is important we convert this early start to recovery into a permanent lift in growth rates.

David Bennett: What challenges does the economy face?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Despite some early signs of recovery, the economy faces numerous challenges. These include a fragile global recovery, serious imbalances in our own economy that have built up over recent years, and an operating balance that remains in deficit. There are early signs of rebalancing: the last two quarters of last year were the first since 2003 when our internationally tradable sectors grew faster than our domestic sectors; and, for the first time since March 2000, Government administration has not grown over a full year.

Stuart Nash: Given that this Government has said that it stands for fairness and equity, how will tax rate alignment and a significant reduction in the top marginal rate for the 8 percent of Kiwis earning over $70,000 directly benefit the 70 percent of New Zealanders earning under $40,000?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member should wait to see how the tax package comes together. I reiterate a point I have made earlier in the House. The Government is looking to extend the tax base to raise more tax from property. By and large that property is owned by higher-income New Zealanders. It is not yet clear whether higher-income New Zealanders as a group will end up paying more tax in total when we include extra property taxes.

David Bennett: How is the Government tackling the challenges the economy faces?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: One way we have been tackling the growth in Government administration is to put a lid on Government spending, and I am pleased that that is showing through in the figures released today, which show that the balance of the economy has shifted slightly in that the productive and export sector actually grew in the last 6 months of last year and the Government sector shrank somewhat.

Referendum on MMP—Campaign Spending Cap

4. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Justice: Has he received advice on the benefits of having campaign spending caps in the MMP referendum?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of

Justice: Yes, and the Minister has also received advice that the previous referenda on the election system, in 1992 and 1993, and the super-referendum in 1997 had no cap on spending and no need to register with the Electoral Commission. All that was needed was a promoter statement. In fact, the Minister is advised that no Government referendum in the post-war period limited spending by third-party campaigners.

Dr Russel Norman: Can he explain the logic of requiring spending caps in an election campaign and in a citizens initiated referendum but not for a referendum on the future of democracy in New Zealand?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, the Minister can. The spending limit for the citizens initiated referendum was introduced as part of a package of measures to limit the ability of groups, or individuals, both to initiate a referendum and to campaign on that referendum. What we have here with a Government referendum, where the issue is not put to the public by a third party, is an elected Government rightly carrying out its campaign pledge to voters.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Why did the Government accept the advice from the Ministry of Justice that the influence that wealth can have on the outcome of a referendum is debatable, over the advice that the rationale for regulating advertising is to avoid the influence of wealth on the outcome by its overwhelming other voices in the public information campaign?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: What has happened here is that there has been an endeavour to balance a number of interests. The interest that the member apparently has overlooked is the issue of freedom of expression. But what the proposal in the bill does is place an obligation on anyone who spends over $12,000 during the regulated period to register with the commission. So there is a balancing, and freedom of expression is a very important factor.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister believe that there is freedom of expression during election campaigns when there are spending caps; if so, why not have spending caps during the MMP referendum and also protect freedom of expression?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, of course, the Minister believes there are very important freedom-of-expression issues in an election campaign, and that is why the National Party fought so hard against the repulsive electoral finance legislation. But the point is that what we have tried to do with this legislation—[Interruption] To receive a lecture on section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act from Annette King, when there was no Attorney-General’s report under section 7 for the Electoral Finance Bill, is a bit rich! What we have tried to do here is balance freedom of expression and introduce the requirement of registration. I say also that the Campaign for Better Government spent huge sums of money in 1992 and 1993 to advance its particular views.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister agree with the 1986 report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System when it stated that it is not “fair if some in the community use their relative wealth to exercise disproportionate influence in determining who is to govern and what policies are to be pursued.”; if so, does he agree that the same logic applies to the MMP referendum?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: One can see where the member is coming from; that is the reason why the registration requirement has been introduced. That, coupled with freedom of expression, addresses the member’s concerns.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I seek leave to table the regulatory impact statement on the Electoral Referendum Bill. As the House will be aware, the Government no longer publishes regulatory impact statements with bills, but I believe that the House should look at the detail of them.

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

Dr Russel Norman: I seek the leave of the House to table chapter 8 of the royal commission’s report, which is the chapter on political finance from which my quote was taken.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I seek leave to table the “Advertising Rules” section of the regulatory impact statement alone, without the rest of the regulatory impact statement.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that portion of the regulatory impact statement. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have a slight question about consistency of ruling. You have just put to the House—and I was very surprised—the question of leave for the tabling of a chapter of a royal commission report, which is something that has been published by this House.

Mr SPEAKER: What was going through my mind at the time, and I may have misheard—and, if I did, I apologise to the House—but I understood it was a royal commission report from the 1980s. It was my judgment, on the spur of the moment, that that was something that members may not be so familiar with, and, therefore, I felt that it was not unreasonable to put that leave to the House.

Mining in Conservation Areas—Potential National Parks Act Reform

5. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: Does she intend to amend the National Parks Act 1980 to enable mining?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister of

Conservation: The National Parks Act does not prohibit mining, but sets very high environmental tests for mining to be allowed. The Government will not be changing these tests or the Act.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister now agree with the Prime Minister’s statement on Tuesday that there will be no open-cast mining in current schedule 4 areas in Coromandel and on Great Barrier Island?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister agrees with the very wise statement of the Prime Minister.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister understand that the economic case in the Ministry of Economic Development papers for mining conservation land in Coromandel used figures based on open-cast mining?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Of course the Minister of Conservation has responsibility for assessing the conservation values as part of the review of schedule 4. The economic issues are for others. However, in respect of those economic issues, the information is poor, and one of the reasons the Minister of Energy and Resources is committed to a substantive investment by GNS Science is so that we can provide more accurate information on New Zealand’s mineral resources.

Chris Auchinvole: Have any access consents been granted for mining in national parks; if so, when and by whom?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, Minister Chris Carter granted approval for the Hart Creek mine in the Paparoa National Park in 2006. For clarity, this mine is not underground, like Pike River coalfield, which was also approved by Labour. It is on the surface and it is for gold and gemstones. The approval of this mine in May—

Hon David Parker: That mine is not in the park.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member says that it is not in the park; it is. The approval of this mine in May 2006—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Just make it up, Nick.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Two members opposite continue to interject that I am incorrect. I seek the leave of the House to table the access agreement for mining in a national park by Chris Carter on 25 May 2006.

Hon Darren Hughes: I have a question as to whether a Minister can answer with a point of order seeking leave to table documents. You have been very clear on that, and I think it is a good ruling you have made.

Mr SPEAKER: I assumed the Minister had finished his answer.

Hon Ruth Dyson: But he didn’t.

Mr SPEAKER: I took it as that. The Minister will not be given any further time to answer after his seeking leave to table a document. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware that at the Commerce Committee today the head of the New Zealand Tourism Board was surprised to learn for the first time that the 70 or so mining licences on conservation areas are not in national parks, as his Government’s spin would have everyone believe?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is very clear that some of those mines are in national parks, including ones approved by the previous Government. Phil Goff said on National Radio this morning that “Labour never ever allowed mining in national parks.”, but I say that that statement is false.

Chris Auchinvole: Can the Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: I have called the members’ colleague. National front-bench members are asked to show some courtesy for Chris Auchinvole.

Chris Auchinvole: Can the Minister advise the House that the only areas of national park being considered for removal from schedule 4 are those in the Inangahua sector of the Paparoa National Park; if so, what advice did the Department of Conservation give to the Government in 2008, when these areas were added to schedule 4?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member is correct. The only areas of national parks nationwide being considered for removal from schedule 4 are those in the Inangahua sector of the Paparoa National Park. The House will be interested to know that the Department of Conservation advised against those areas being added to schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act in 2008, saying that the addition was not justified. The previous Government ignored that advice. It is perfectly proper, given that Labour went against the Department of Conservation’s own advice, that this Government is reconsidering the status of that area.

Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware that it would have been illegal for the Minister of Conservation in the last Government to issue a mining licence, or to agree to a mining licence being issued, for more than 100 square metres of any schedule 4 land?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The mine in the Paparoa National Park I drew members’ attention to, which Chris Carter approved in May 2006, is in an area that at that time was not included in schedule 4. That is why it is true that if an area is in schedule 4, it cannot be mined. But the point being made by Labour members—that they never approved mining in national parks—is false.

Chris Auchinvole: What policy governs mining activities in national parks; and when was this policy most recently approved?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: National parks are governed by the general policy, as set out in section 44 of the Act. The 1983 general policy for national parks was revised in 2001, and the new general policy was approved by the previous Government in April 2005. The policy, approved and endorsed at that time by Cabinet, including Phil Goff, states in policy 10.8(b): “access arrangements to prospect, explore or mine in national parks will be considered on a case-by-case basis”.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave of the House to table the general policy statement, in which the Labour Cabinet approved mining in national parks on a case by case basis in 2005.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Mining in Conservation Areas—Economic Benefits of Environmentally Responsible Mining

6. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What are the economic benefits—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable member. This time I ask front-benchers on both sides of the House to show some courtesy to the members at the back of the House.

SANDRA GOUDIE: What are the economic benefits from environmentally responsible mining in New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): There are many economic benefits. Mining in New Zealand is a $2 billion industry, and in 2009 exports were worth about $1.1 billion. Including workers in oil and gas, the industry employs about 6,000 people. Jobs in the industry are well paid, at double the national average, and jobs are highly productive, contributing to GDP, per worker, at six times the national average rate.

Sandra Goudie: Has he seen any evidence of support for the mining industry in New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have seen a great deal of evidence of support for the mining industry in New Zealand. Indeed, I have some photographic evidence here today to show the House of some members who support mining in New Zealand. The photograph shows the Hon Damien O’Connor, the Hon Trevor Mallard, and a New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union official standing outside the Rūnanga Miners’ Hall, when Mr Mallard was launching a document about health and safety in underground mining. It will come as no surprise to members that this photo was taken during the 2008 election campaign.

Sandra Goudie: Are there benefits to members of seeing firsthand the operations of mining in New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, I believe it is beneficial for members to become familiar with mining operations in New Zealand. To prove that Mr Mallard’s commitment to mining is not short, I have this photograph to show the House. It shows Mr Mallard fully kitted-out in his little miner’s suit, about to go down the pit. This photo was taken when the Labour Party liked to identify with mining as the industry that was its birthplace.

Hon Damien O’Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask the member to table the photos so that I can have a copy of them.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not believe the photos are official documents.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave for those wonderful documents to be published.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am unable to seek that leave, Mr Speaker, as these documents already have been published.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the House has had enough fun on that one.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is there any further evidence of why there is interest in support for the mining industry?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It would appear that fresh from Mr Mallard’s visit down the mining pit, with the exhilaration of coal dust still up his nostrils, he must have told such wonderful stories about the experience that his colleague the Hon Phil Goff was encouraged. For those who cannot recognise him, he is the guy on the end of this photo. He was encouraged to put on his gear and go down the mining pit. This photo is from a time when Labour was proud to support workers and proud to support the mining industry in New Zealand.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is rather unfair that they have not shown the photograph of me when I went down the mine.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I understand the problem was that when Annette King when down the mine, the workers were scared to come out. In order to accommodate the Hon Trevor Mallard’s request, I seek leave to table these three wonderful photographs, which have previously been

published. I am sure that if Mr O’Connor contacts my office, we will make a PDF for his next electorate newsletter.

Mr SPEAKER: I have previously ruled out tabling photographs and that kind of thing.

Health Services—Minister’s Statements

7. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements on health services?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, including the statement that the Labour Government doubled spending in health, and got a lot less for it.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What does he say to the 83-year-old woman who was trapped, half in and half out of her bed, with just a cotton hospital gown on—no singlet and no cardigan—who could not get the attention of a nurse, because they were too busy; and who was discovered freezing by her family when they went to visit her in Auckland City Hospital last week?

Hon TONY RYALL: I would be concerned about that case if that is the full story, but the member is not helping that person, by not giving me her name and details, as her colleagues do, so that I can look into it. I can say that the Government has put an additional $60 million into the Auckland District Health Board.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What is his response to the nurses at Waitematā, who are so concerned about their staff numbers being pared back to establishment numbers, despite a 77 percent growth in patient numbers, that they called a crisis meeting with the director of nursing earlier this week?

Hon TONY RYALL: I say to those nurses that we in the Government inherited a very difficult situation at Waitemata District Health Board. Under the previous Government, people languished under fluorescent light bulbs in the emergency department for up to 35 hours. That no longer happens under the Waitemata District Health Board. I can tell the member that we have put an additional $53 million into the Waitemata District Health Board.

Michael Woodhouse: What reports has he seen of other improvements to front-line services?

Hon TONY RYALL: The House might recall that the Government invested an additional $48 million over 4 years in ambulance services, including adding 100 paramedics. I am pleased to advise the House that we are almost halfway through hiring those extra paramedics, which has allowed for more double-crewing for call-outs in some areas, far in excess of what was possible under the previous Government. For example, in Whanganui, from 66 percent to 92 percent of callouts are now being double-crewed; in Whakatāne, the figure has gone from 19 percent to 54 percent of call-outs; in Hastings, from 63 percent to 88 percent of call-outs; and, in Waiuku, from 27 percent to 77 percent of call-outs. We expect to see further improvements in front-line ambulance services with the second phase of the roll-out of the 100 paramedics.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How does his categorical assurance to this House that all older people in Otago and Southland would be offered reassessments before their home support was cut relate to the situation of an 81-year-old Mosgiel woman who was assessed by phone 2 months ago, had her home help cut from 2½ hours a week to 1½ hours a week, and last week received a letter telling her that her home help had now been cut completely?

Hon TONY RYALL: I would be concerned about that case if that is the full story, but the member is not helping that person, by not giving me her name and details, as her colleagues have done, so that I can look into it. I can say that the Government has put substantial new money into the Otago District Health Board—close to $20 million in the last year.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What explanation will he give to the 83-year-old woman from Paraparaumu who is paralysed on her right side and has been receiving help for heavy cleaning in her house, who received a phone call from a woman from Capital and Coast District Health Board asking how she was coping, only to be told that she would lose all support services forthwith and that this was being done on instructions from the Government?

Hon TONY RYALL: That would be concerning if that were the full story, but the member is not helping that person, by not giving me her name and details, as her colleagues do, so that I can look into it. I can say that the Government has given the Capital and Coast District Health Board an extra $32 million this year, despite inheriting a deficit in unfunded services of over $60 million from that failed party opposite when it was in Government.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table the letter I received from the daughter of the woman I described, who last week found her mother freezing and unable to get into her hospital bed.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table correspondence outlining the situation of the Mosgiel woman who, despite the Minister’s assurance, has had all her home help cut, with no offer—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table a letter from the husband of the 83-year-old woman from Paraparaumu whom I described as having all her home support cut.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Welfare Reforms—Addressing Long-term Welfare Dependency

8. TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister for Social Development and

Employment: Can she explain how this Government is addressing long-term welfare dependency?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Firstly, this Government is not ignoring the issues; we are doing something about them. Secondly, unlike the previous Government, we do not treat beneficiaries like victims; we believe that with the right support they will be able to do it for themselves and work towards self-sufficiency. Thirdly, this Government is not scared to tackle the hard issues.

Todd McClay: Can the Minister explain how this approach is different from that of previous years?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: In the previous 9 years under the Labour Government, we saw many different approaches. First was the “They are all victims.” approach, then the “It’s OK to be on welfare for years.” approach, followed by the “We’ll wait for the economy to pick up.” approach, and, finally, the “Let’s just pretend it’s not there.” approach.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Ministers are regularly asked about reports they may have received on something, and you have allowed that, but the Minister’s entire answer was a political commentary—the Minister’s opinion of what the previous Government did. There were no policies called the things that the Minister just said in the 9 years before this Government came into office. She is responsible for her policies, and that is what she should be answering about today.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the point of order made by the Hon Darren Hughes. The Minister can refer to, and report on, previous policies—that is perfectly acceptable—but to describe them in a politically loaded way is not acceptable. It is not consistent with the Standing Orders. To refer to the policies is fine, and to report on the outcomes of the policies is fine, but to describe them in incorrect terms is not fine.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: In terms of differences in approach, we saw that in the best of times, when we had record low unemployment, we still had quarter of a million people on welfare. We see

now that over 100,000 people have been on welfare for longer than 3 years. That tells us that there are issues there, and we need to be putting the right incentives in place and providing the right support for those people to work towards a life of self-sufficiency.

Carmel Sepuloni: How many of the currently 168,000 unemployed New Zealanders does the Minister expect to have in part-time or full-time jobs in a year’s time, as a result of her measures to address long-term welfare dependency? Can the Minister guarantee to this House that no child will suffer as a consequence of any of her changes?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Of course, we have 64,000 people on the unemployment benefit at the moment, not 168,000. That figure comes come from the household labour force survey reading. The member mixes those figures up quite often and makes that error. Yes, the 64,000 people on the unemployment benefit are obliged to actively look for work. They are work tested. Under our new policy, yes, after a year they will have to reapply for their benefit. There are expectations on those people, and I am confident that they can get themselves back into work.

Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice on this matter. I did not state “168,000 on the unemployment benefit”; I said “168,000 unemployed New Zealanders”. I do not think she addressed either part of my question.

Mr SPEAKER: It is a bit difficult to ask me to ask the Minister to be more precise in an answer to a question like that, because, obviously, the policy, as I understand it, that the Government has announced refers to testing people on the unemployment benefit, and that is why the Minister responded in those terms. That seemed to be a reasonable response, and I do not think I can ask the Minister to be any more specific than that.

Carmel Sepuloni: In terms of the work testing that the Minister of Social Development has discussed in the papers she has put out, it is not just people on the unemployment benefit; it is also people on the domestic purposes benefit and—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is now debating the matter. I have ruled that I am not asking the Minister to answer further. The member has further supplementary questions; if she feels that the answer was inadequate, she can ask more precise questions. Members will see that when they ask clear, precise questions, I can help them get answers. I am prepared to do that. But the questions must be very clear and very precise, and then I will do all I can to make sure that answers are obtained.

Rahui Katene: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I have called Rahui Katene. I again ask the front benches on both sides to please show some courtesy to members at the back of the House.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take severe exception to that. After you rose and made your earlier comment, no one on the front bench made any comment from this side whatsoever. It all came from the other side of this House, not from this side.

Mr SPEAKER: The House is not assisted by that. When I called Rahui Katene, there were interjections. If he wants me to name the members on his side who interjected, I am happy to name them, but I will not do that.

Rahui Katene: What assurance can she give the House that school-age children of the 43,000 sole parents who will be work tested and expected to take up part-time work will not be placed at risk by the welfare reforms?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: All the research that we have seen says to us that children are better off when their parents are in work, so we are supporting them into work and giving them the right help. We are also investing another $4.2 million to make it easier for providers to increase the number of out-of-school programmes and places—particularly home-based and small-scale providers.

Rahui Katene: What assurance can the Minister give the House that children who are chronically sick or disabled—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable member, but I say to both the Hon Trevor Mallard and the Hon Bill English that it is not helpful to the progress of the House for them to interject loudly like that when a member is being called to ask a question. I also add that although members might not have liked the answer being given by the Hon Paula Bennett, I am sure that some members of the House were not able to hear it because the noise was so loud. I ask for a little more reasonableness.

Rahui Katene: What assurance can the Minister give the House that children who are chronically sick or disabled will not be placed at risk by the expectation that their parents will be expected to take up work or face the sanctions that are part of the welfare reforms?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There are a number of exemptions under the work test, particularly for those on the domestic purposes benefit whose children are over 6 years old. One of them is for children who are unwell or disabled and need their parents more than other children do. There are also exemptions for medical reasons, and so on; there are a number of them. If parents need to be with their children, either during school hours or outside them, they can be exempted from the work test.

Todd McClay: How are these reforms balanced and fair?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, the changes are measured, fair, and balanced. We will ensure that support and training are available for people to help them get back into work. As I have just said, people who have genuine reasons will be exempted. Some of those reasons are being medically unable to work, caring for a child who has high needs, and being recently separated and needing time to get one’s life in order and settle one’s children into school. For some of them, it may be the recent death of a partner or leaving a situation of family violence. There are some good reasons why it is harder for some people to get back into work, and we have made exemptions for them. And, quite simply, if the jobs are not there, then nothing changes for those parents.

Mining in Conservation Areas—Figures in Discussion Document

9. Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How can New Zealanders have confidence in any of the figures in his “Stocktake of Schedule 4” discussion document when he said yesterday that “I think the numbers are always going to be all over the show until you actually get something out of the ground, you simply don’t know what the story is”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): Quite apart from the fact that that is blindingly obvious, New Zealanders can have confidence in the figures. They come from reputable analysis carried out by geologists and scientists, many from GNS Science, which is a very reputable Crown research institute that is internationally recognised for its expertise in this area. It is just common sense that, until we carry out exploration, all we have is potential based on the geology of any particular area. There will be contention about what that geology means. The underlying fact is that New Zealand is a mineral-rich country. That side of the House wants to lock it up and pretend it is not there. We think New Zealanders should have a say in whether they experience some of the benefits of that estate.

Hon Darren Hughes: What mistake with their figures were his officials admitting to when they contacted television news at 5.30 p.m. yesterday with respect to the exploration value of gold on Great Barrier Island?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The report done by Dr Richard Barker in January of this year—

Hon Darren Hughes: The expert.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —yes, he is an expert—was provided to the Ministry of Economic Development, and it was posted on the ministry’s website. It talks about the values from two parts of Te Ahumata Plateau. The figure that was used by the ministry assessed the entire plateau. That figure has been assessed by Crown Minerals geologists, and I believe it is consistent with the advice that was given to them by Dr Barker.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister what mistake they were referring to. He referred to Dr Barker’s report—

Mr SPEAKER: We are not going to debate the matter by way of point of order. It seems the Minister is disputing that there was a mistake. He does not have to agree with the claimed mistake when he is answering a question. Does the Hon Darren Hughes wish to ask a further supplementary question?

Hon Darren Hughes: I am happy to, but I thought you were going to call Mr Young.

Mr SPEAKER: Because there was concern over his first question, I was going to come back to the honourable member to pursue his questioning.

Hon Darren Hughes: When he said there was a degree of hysteria around this issue, was he referring to the coalition he has built of conservationists, economists, activists, and geologists who oppose mining in the most special parts of New Zealand, or was he referring to the Government’s defence of this sloppy policy?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think the only people who have had a sloppy position on this policy are the Labour Opposition members.

Jonathan Young: How many coal and mining permits were issued for Department of Conservation land by the previous Labour-led Government?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have previously advised the House that the previous Labour Government issued 74 mining permits on Department of Conservation land. I am very happy to admit that officials have now revised those figures, and the real figure is that 218 permits on Department of Conservation land were issued by the previous Government. The amount of land permitted under those 218 permits was 21,961 hectares, more than three times the size of the land about which the Government is asking whether it should come out of schedule 4.

Jonathan Young: Has he seen any statements in support of the mining industry in New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have already shown the House the various sojourns of members from the opposite side of the House to mining sites around New Zealand, but there is more. I read this quote in answer, which I think perfectly sums up the current Government’s position on mining: “I say again that the industry provides an immense number of jobs and dollars for the economy … We can have business and can preserve the environment, as long as there are tight rules.” That statement came from none other that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove.

Hon Darren Hughes: Is it still his expectation that the Prime Minister will push through with these mining proposals, when it increasingly looks like there is more accuracy about the volume of minerals present in the recipe for date scones than in the figures in his document?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: This Government will honour the public consultation process, then there will be some decisions.

Hon Darren Hughes: How much longer will we see him as the caring, sensitive, uniting, and incontrol face of the Government’s mining policy for the 7,000 hectares of pristine land before we are all receiving ambassadorial postcards from him eating date scones all around the world?

Mr SPEAKER: I guess the Minister does not need to answer a question that is more tongue-incheek than anything else.

Jonathan Young: Has he seen any contradictory statements about where mining should be allowed in New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, I have. The Labour Party is now campaigning against mining on any part of the conservation estate, even though whilst in Government it issued 218 mining permits on that land. Just 1 month ago, Phil Goff was saying that he though there was some scope for conservation—

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you could not hear me calling out a point of order, Mr Speaker; we could not hear that answer. We over here would love to hear

about the contradictions that bedevil the Labour Party in 2010 and we would like to have the answer in silence.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any further assistance on this. The reason why I think the House was in some kind of uproar is because the Minister’s answer was not strictly within the Standing Orders. The Minister cannot allege a policy being a policy of another political party in this House. That is what members observed happening, and the other political party denied that that is its policy. That is what debate is all about, but it is not what question time is about, and Ministers are not at liberty to give that kind of answer. The Minister can report accurately on what policies may have been inherited by the Government, but he cannot allege certain policies that may not be factually correct.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The question was whether the Minister had seen any contradictory statements about mining being allowed in New Zealand. I was pointing out that there is quite a significant contradiction.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister can answer such a question, but he needs to be careful how he answers it. I clearly heard the Minister make claims about the Labour Party’s policy, and that is not the Minister’s responsibility. Certainly, if he has quotes or reports on what certain members have said, then that is factual and accurate and he can report it. But to allege what the Labour Party’s policy might be is not consistent with Standing Orders.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have seen a comment attributed to the Hon Phil Goff 1 month ago in which he said that he thought there was scope in some conservation land to extract minerals if it can be done without any damage to the environment. I have also seen a website put up by the same person’s support body, saying “Yours, not mines”, which makes it very clear that he is now opposed to mining in the conservation estate. That is a contradiction.

Forestry—Reversing Deforestation and Future Intentions

10. LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What progress has the Government made in reversing the deforestation over the past decade, and what further reports has he seen on future forestry intentions?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): I am pleased to report that the latest forestry data show a small gain in New Zealand’s forest area for 2009. This contrasts with significant losses in 2008, 2007, and 2006. The principal reason for the turn-round has been reduced deforestation. This has dropped from a peak of 20,000 hectares to 3,500 hectares in 2009. I am also encouraged by the survey’s results, released today, which show low deforestation intentions into the future of only about 2,000 hectares per year. There are also positive signs for new planting, with 4,000 hectares of new planting last year, which is more than double that of 2008. This trend is positive and shows that confidence is coming back to the forest sector.

Louise Upston: How does this latest data on forestation compare in a historical sense?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: New Zealand’s plantation forest area has consistently grown, with major spurts in the 1930s, the 1970s, and the 1990s. However, there have been only three years since records began when there was net deforestation, those years being 2006, 2007, and 2008. The net gain of 500 hectares last year is small, but the fact that we are back on a growth path after 3 years of significant deforestation is encouraging. I am also encouraged that forester intentions indicate there will be net gains of 4,700 hectares this year, 5,700 hectares next year, and 7,700 hectares in 2012.

Louise Upston: What reports has the Minister seen on the impact of the emissions trading scheme on deforestation intentions into the future?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The report released today is very clear that New Zealand would be losing significant forest area without the emissions trading scheme legislation. The survey indicates that the deforestation rate would be more than three times higher than it is, or about 8,000 hectares per year. The Government has gone to considerable effort, in its moderation of the emissions

trading scheme, to more than halve the cost for consumers and for industry but to retain the full price signals to the forest sector, and this latest data on foresters’ intentions is showing the positive results that this policy is delivering.

Education, National Standards—Teacher Workload

11. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: How many of the reports or briefings that she has received on national standards refer to increases in teacher workload, and what is the best estimate of that increase in workload expressed in hours per term in 2010?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): I have received an extremely large amount of advice about national standards since November 2008. I am advised that—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think that my speaker is working. I cannot hear the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask members—

Hon Paula Bennett: That’s because you don’t have a speaker there any more.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure that the honourable member realises that a point of order is being considered and silence is required. In case she overlooked that fact, I will overlook the breach on this occasion. The Hon Trevor Mallard has made a reasonable point. There was a lot of noise, and even I found it difficult to hear the Minister.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have received an extremely large amount of advice about national standards since November 2008. I am advised that many of those reports have some reference to teacher workload, but it has not been possible to search every report to determine a specific number that refer to potential workloads. What I can tell the member is that the Ministry of Education has provided me with consistent advice that teachers who are following best practice should not experience an increased workload as a result of national standards. The national standards are about setting goals for students, using formative assessment, and providing regular progress reports to parents in language they can understand. That is core business for all teachers and for all schools. It is not an optional extra.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have here a reply to a written question, dated 15 March, which indicated that the Minister had had 24—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Trevor Mallard: I ask you for a little tolerance, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no; the member is disputing the answer by way of a point of order, which he cannot do. He has further supplementary questions, which he can use if he believes that what the Minister has told the House may be incorrect, or whatever. But to litigate it by way of a point of order is not on.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of her answer, which I received on 15 March, and which indicated she had had 24 reports or briefings on national standards, I ask whether it was too much work for her office to look through those in order to work out how many of them refer to teacher workload.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I repeat that I have received an extremely large amount of advice on national standards since November 2008. The primary question does not refer simply to the ministry’s advice; it refers to reports or briefings that I have received. I am saying I have received an extremely large amount of advice, and the ministry has worked through as much of that advice as it possibly can in the time available since my office received the question at 10.45 this morning. In that time it has identified just two reports that note that teachers may claim an increased workload. I am happy to table a full response to the question once all reports have been worked through, but until that time I cannot give an accurate number, and I would not want to mislead the House.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What was her estimate of the increase in teacher workload when she made her decision to go ahead with national standards in their current form?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The estimate we made was that teachers who were using good assessment information to inform their teaching and reporting well to parents would see little increase in their workload. Teachers who are not doing those things will have to start doing them— it is core business for teachers. But I have to say to the member that we have actually reduced some of teachers’ workload. For instance, they will not have to hand out “Wassup!” badges, they will not have to act as fruit monitors to deliver fruit to schools, and they will not have to round up kids who have popped across the road to get a pie, because we have rescinded the nanny State tuck-shop regulations.

Allan Peachey: What support is available to teachers to assist them to implement the national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Government has committed $26 million this year to professional development and support. That includes the provision of information workshops, self-review tools, school training visits, in-depth work with 7,000 to 8,000 teachers, support for provisionally registered and overseas-trained teachers, and funding subsidies for teachers to access postgraduate qualifications in literacy and numeracy. The ministry has also published extensive online and printed support materials for teachers, principals, and boards of trustees.

Hon Trevor Mallard: If there is no change for the majority of teachers, as she indicated in her answer to the penultimate supplementary question, what difference will the majority of parents see as a result of her change to national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The majority of parents in New Zealand support the introduction of national standards because they know that they will give them, for the first time, good information about their child’s progress, in plain language. The fact that that member has to keep asking that question shows—

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s question was very simple. It asked what difference parents would see. It does not deserve a political attack like the last bit of the answer; there was nothing political in the question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What change will parents see when their children are in good schools that have been reporting well already?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The change that those parents will see is the progress of their children against the national standards.

Overseas Investment Rules Review—Activities of Technical Reference Group Members

12. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Have any members of the technical reference group been involved in cases involving foreign takeovers of New Zealand dairy companies while assisting in the review of the overseas investment regulatory regime; if so, what are the names of the relevant law firm and lawyer?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No members of the technical reference group have been involved in takeovers of dairy companies. One company in the dairy industry did seek to raise capital from the New Zealand public, which required Overseas Investment Office approval, and it involved a member of the technical reference group. That company was Synlait, and the decision sheet is available on the Overseas Investment Office’s website. Synlait ultimately decided not to proceed with raising capital from the New Zealand public.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he have any concern that a lawyer such as Andrew Monteith, in the case that the Minister referred to, who is advising the Government on rewriting the Overseas Investment Act has also been involved in assisting overseas firms in raising money in order to buy up New Zealand’s dairy assets?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I have no concerns at all. When the Government gets expert advice, it tends to go to the people who do the transactions; otherwise they do not know what they are talking about. In this case, I have personally met with those lawyers and have had a discussion about how we can get Overseas Investment Office decisions made more quickly and at a lower cost.

They have given some useful suggestions and some suggestions that would not be acceptable to the Government.

Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware that the free-trade agreement with China does not stop the New Zealand Government from declining applications to buy New Zealand farmland under the overseas investment rules?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes.

Dr Russel Norman: When he spoke with the technical advisory group lawyers from Chapman Tripp, Russell McVeigh, Simpson Grierson, Bell Gully, and Minter Ellison Rudd Watts on 18 February this year, did he express any concerns about large foreign firms being able to buy up huge swaths of the New Zealand primary production sector; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We had a discussion about how the Overseas Investment Act works, the technicality of the processes, and how those processes could be improved for the benefit of both New Zealand vendors and overseas investors. It is up to the Government to decide whether to take that advice. The fact is that under the Overseas Investment Act hundreds of millions of dollars of overseas investment have come into New Zealand—in fact, it is billions of dollars. Because New Zealanders do not save enough themselves, we are more reliant than many countries on overseas investment in order to provide jobs and incomes for New Zealand families.

Dr Russel Norman: How are any conflicts of interest being managed, given that the legal firms that the technical advisory group lawyers work for—Chapman Tripp, Russell McVeigh, Simpson Grierson, Bell Gully, and Minter Ellison Rudd Watts—have been involved in over 70 cases involving the Overseas Investment Office since they were appointed?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is no conflict of interest involved, despite the member’s attempts to portray discussions with experts in the field as a conspiracy. When the Government wants to obtain expert advice on the provision of health services, it talks to the people who provide the health services. If it wants to obtain expert advice on the provision of education, it talks to people in education. When we want to obtain expert advice on the law, we talk to people who know something about the law.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a statement made by Minter Ellison Rudd Watts on the appointment of Andrew Monteith to the review group.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that document to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Dr Russel Norman: The second document is the decision summary in the case of Synlait and various unknown overseas persons seeking approval from the Overseas Investment Office.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

ENDS

© Scoop Media