(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

THURSDAY, 1 APRIL 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Leader of Opposition’s Statement

1. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Attorney-General: Does he agree with the reported statement of the Hon Phil Goff that “any outcome needs to maintain public access to beaches and protect the customary title or rights of iwi to the seabed and foreshore” and that “this is already the situation”; if not, why not?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I certainly agree that any outcome needs to protect the customary title or rights of iwi. However, rather than protecting customary title, the current Act extinguished it, but, I guess, only the Labour Party would equate extinguishing basic property rights with protecting them. Perhaps this helps to explain why Labour members thought that the way to protect free speech in New Zealand was to restrict the rights of New Zealanders for fully one-third of their adult life under the Electoral Finance Act.

Rahui Katene: Does the Government’s consultation document on the foreshore and seabed address the concerns raised by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination* that the 2004 Act contained discriminatory aspects against Māori; in particular, its failure to provide a guaranteed right of redress?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: In addition to the criticisms of the United Nations the review panel did, indeed, find that the current Act disproportionately discriminated against Māori— [Interruption]; well, I am simply referring to what the report said—because it extinguished Māori property rights in the form of customary title, while leaving non-Māori property rights unaffected, and it removed the fundamental right of folk to go to court. The Government’s preferred approach set out in the consultation document will restore that fundamental right of New Zealanders to have access to the courts.

Rahui Katene: Why is public domain takiwā iwi whānui the Government’s preferred option, and is it responsive to tikanga Māori such as *kaitiakitanga?

Hon Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It appeared that the microphone did not kick in for the first 10 or 11 words—I certainly did not hear them—and I wonder whether we could have the question again. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: If members are quite finished, there was a point of order. It was a totally fair point of order. I could not hear, either. If the honourable member Rahui Katene would not mind repeating her question, please.

Rahui Katene: Why is public domain takiwā iwi whānui the Government’s preferred option, and is it responsive to tikanga Māori such as kaitiakitanga?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I believe it is. The concept of ownership has proved to be a polarising issue, and I believe that the public domain concept provides a very good basis on the

way forward and it certainly provides a good framework within which iwi and hapū can access the courts to seek to prove customary title.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister agree with Hone Harawira that the existing Foreshore and Seabed Act essentially stole freehold title to the whole of the foreshore and seabed around New Zealand from Māoridom?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I think that as we move forward it is important to avoid explosive terms like “steal” or “appropriate”. I am keen to seek to achieve a reconciliation of interests—[Interruption]—and, in answer to the member for Rongotai*, we could all look back to the past and throw sticks at one another, but I am seeking to rise above this and do the right thing for the country.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order about the nature of the answer from two perspectives. First, the quote from my colleague is a quote, I understand, from just yesterday, so it is not looking back but is a recent matter of public importance for us to consider.

Hon Member: Yesterday is the past.

Hon Darren Hughes: Well, he said the ancient past.

Mr SPEAKER: There should not be interjection while a point of order is being taken.

Hon Darren Hughes: The second point is that the substance of the Minister’s answer was that he did not want to go down the path of criticism and arrow slinging, and so on and so forth, but in his own prepared answers to the Māori Party’s supposed supplementary questions he accused the Labour Party of shutting down freedom of speech and all sorts of things. I do not feel that my colleague’s question was answered.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the member, and I agree with him absolutely that the disorder that has arisen during this question stems from the Minister’s first answer, which was not particularly helpful. Having said that, I think the member the Hon David Parker asked whether the Minister agreed with a statement. We all know that when we seek opinions we cannot expect to receive absolutely precise answers around them. From the Minister’s answer it would appear that he does not totally agree, because he suggested that that sort of language was not helpful. So I think the member did get his question answered.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister agree with comments made by *John Armstrong in the New Zealand Herald this morning that “Right now, the Maori Party carries the responsibility of making optimum use of a benign political climate to strike a deal both for its own sake and the country’s.”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: With apologies to the New Zealand Herald, I have to confess that I have not read the article. I am the first to admit that it is a different political environment from what it was 7 years ago. I think there is a very good opportunity to work through this issue. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister—

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Listen to Mr Robertson behaving like an oaf.

Mr SPEAKER: I was just about to assist the Minister, and he has just cut the ground from under my feet. On this occasion the Minister was trying to give a helpful answer, there was a lot of interjection, and it was very unhelpful. But with that last comment the Minister has left me no option but to proceed to the next question, if there are no more supplementary questions.

Budget 2010—Responsible Spending of Taxpayers’ Money

2. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Finance: How will Budget 2010 ensure taxpayers’ money is spent responsibly?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Budget 2010 will continue the process of cleaning up the mess left by the previous Government and improving the quality of Government spending. It is important that this Government focus on better *front-line services and on not

wasting money on bureaucracy, strategies, plans, and workshops, as the previous Government did. This Government intends to honour the confidence that taxpayers have shown in the Government’s ability to use their PAYE* dollar wisely.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: How will the Government improve the quality of spending?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It will not actually be very difficult to do so, because in the past 5 years under the previous Government one-third of all Budget vote areas received funding increases of over 50 percent, and two-thirds received increases of over 30 percent. These very large increases made very little increase in the effectiveness of public services. In Budget 2009 we directed about $2 billion of lower-value spending to the *front line of public services, and we intend to redirect a significant amount in this next Budget.

Stuart Nash: What is his response to the Australian Prime Minister, *Kevin Rudd, who earlier this week talked about the consequences of not doing enough to protect jobs in a recession, saying: “Look at the unemployment rate in New Zealand, just across the Tasman … If that unemployment rate was replicated here in Australia, hundreds of thousands of people would not be with jobs today,”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That question is a bit rich coming from a party that opposes mining, which has been the largest source of new jobs in Australia.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Has the Minister seen any reports on alternative approaches to fiscal management?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes. I have seen reports of the long list of unfunded commitments Labour left behind when it left Government. When we add them all up, we see that the previous Labour Government had made $6 billion of commitments for which there was no funding at all. I am pleased to say that in last year’s Budget we got rid of most of those commitments, and in this year’s Budget we will continue to eliminate the waste that Labour built into the system.

Stuart Nash: When he said yesterday that jobs lost in the recession were *“not real jobs”, which aspect of the jobs was not real—the steady wage, or people’s ability to pay the bills and support their families? Does he simply believe that those 168,000 people are not really unemployed?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: What I said yesterday was that instead of crying crocodile tears, Labour should take responsibility for the problems it has created in the economy. It promoted a housing bubble, it fed consumption in the economy with excessive Government spending, and people who thought they had long-term*, sustainable jobs did not actually have long-term, sustainable jobs. We are trying to clean up that mess.

Crime, Violent—Prime Minister’s Statement

3. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “I know that one of the key reasons Kiwis elected National is because they trusted us to take the tough steps needed to tackle violent crime and make families safer in their home and communities”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, and the Government has followed through on that by passing 11 new pieces of legislation, with three more having been introduced, that toughen up on sentences, parole, and bail for violent offenders, improve police powers, crack down on gangs and P, and support crime victims.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How much safer are New Zealand families, when the crime statistics released today show that the increase in crime under National is bigger than it was in any calendar year under the previous Labour Government and that violent crime has risen by 9.2 percent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has taken seriously the need to get on top of the rising momentum of violent crime over the last decade. We are backing the police with a wide range of tools, which they appreciate and which the public believe will be effective in dealing with that rising momentum of violent crime.

David Garrett: Does the Prime Minister expect the “three strikes”* legislation that has now been reported back to the House will make a difference to violent crime in New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes; that is why the Government supports that legislation. The “three strikes” legislation will send a very clear message to serious, recidivist offenders that they will be dealt with severely. The legislation will also make it less likely that serious, recidivist offenders will be able to continue to commit crime, because they will be locked up.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Which communities are feeling safer now than they were before the election, considering that 10 out of the 12 police districts in New Zealand experienced an increase in crime in 2009, six of those on the back of a decrease in crime under the previous Labour Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Those communities, and all communities, are looking forward to the benefits of an increase in police numbers, tougher sentences, tighter parole management, tighter rules for bail on violent offenders, improved police powers, and a crackdown on gangs and P. I must say that all the reports coming out of, for instance, South Auckland are that the higher police numbers and smarter policing are making that community feel safer.

David Garrett: Has the Prime Minister seen evidence that defining a “strike” as a conviction plus a qualifying offence would greatly reduce the effect of the “three strikes” policy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There has been a lot of discussion about the definition of a “strike” and the definition of an offence. The Government has supported the general principle that dealing more harshly with serious, recidivist offenders will make the community safer, because those criminals will be locked up.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: If, as Simon Power said, 54 murders in a year was an example of violence running wild, what would he call a massive 25 percent increase in murders in 2009 under his watch, leading to the highest murder rate in 10 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am sure that Mr Power would regard any increase in the murder rate as being completely unacceptable, and that is why he has been the prime driver in this Government in passing a series of law changes that will give the police more tools—and the criminals more consequences—to deal with violent crime.

Su’a William Sio: Why did he tell Counties-Manukau police in March: “Provisional statistics suggest crime in the region is dropping”, and: “Already, people in Counties-Manukau are noticing a change for the better”, when the crime statistics released today show that Counties-Manukau had an increase in every category of crime in 2009 and, in many cases, on the back of decreases in the year before that?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That member would know as well as anyone that both the previous Government and the current Government have put considerable effort and resources into reducing crime in *South Auckland. Our discussions with the police have been to the effect that they believe the increase in police numbers and the changes in their methods of policing, alongside the work done under the previous Government in respect of youth gangs, will have a significant impact on crime in South Auckland.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Can the Prime Minister now tell us exactly when he will deliver on his promised priority to make our streets safer for *Kiwis, rather than using every excuse he can find, which is what he and his police Minister have done today, as an excuse for inaction and not delivering?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has delivered on his promises. The Government has passed 11 new laws, with three more to come, that toughen up on sentences, parole, and bail, increase police numbers, improve police powers, and crack down on gangs and on *P. The people who have been making excuses are in the Labour Party, which has not supported all the measures that are needed to get on top of the rising momentum of violent crime.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why does he not honour his promise and be accountable for the explosion in violent crime in New Zealand under his watch, rather than making excuses, bearing in

mind that he said before the election: “Clark may offer excuses but I say this: not on my watch. National will do better at preventing crime and we will do better at cracking down on criminals.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: And that is exactly what he has done.

Crime Statistics—Factors Influencing 2009 Statistics

4. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Police: What reports has she received on the key factors that influenced the 2009 crime statistics?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): The crime statistics today show that New Zealand has a serious violent element that has no respect for people, the community, or the law.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Surprise, surprise!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It might well be a surprise to Clayton Cosgrove, but it is not a surprise to members on this side of the House. Two big factors in our crime statistics are reported family violence and an increase in alcohol and drug arrests due to an increased focus on these crimes by police. Despite this—

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister while she is on her feet, but I am sitting very close to her and I cannot hear a word. A constant barrage is coming from the Opposition benches. The Opposition might not like to hear the answer, but I certainly would, and I am sure that other members would, too.

Hon Darren Hughes: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think I need further assistance on this one. I ask members to be a little more reasonable, but I do not blame this situation totally on the Opposition, at all, because the Minister in answering the question included a provocative comment directed across the House, which obviously brought more interjection back. The remedy is partly in the Minister’s hands: to not be unnecessarily or gratuitously provocative.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I will continue. Despite this, and despite the—

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You had barely called the Minister to answer the question when the barrage of noise began again. I am sitting marginally closer to her than Mr Hide was, but I could not hear a word of what was being said.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member. On this occasion, the Minister had barely opened her mouth, so the Opposition front-benchers* did not have the excuse that she had been provocative, yet there was an immediate barrage. I now ask seriously for members to show a little more respect for the House.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Despite this, the police have achieved an outstanding result in solving 47.8 percent of all reported crime—the highest level since electronic records began in 1978. In fact, just today the police completed a major organised crime operation in the Bay of Plenty, with 115 arrests, the destruction of thousands of cannabis plants, and the seizing of methamphetamine, cash, and stolen property—yet another great result from the police.

Sandra Goudie: What other steps has this Government taken to address the issues raised by the crime statistics?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: We have taken action to toughen sentences, parole, and bail for violent offenders; we have improved police powers and cracked down on gangs and P; and, most important, we have supported the victims of crime. We have given the police new tools to go after criminals, including 720 new *Tasers and a new power to take DNA samples from offenders arrested for imprisonable offences. We are putting 300 extra police on the front line*, and 200 police officers are already deployed in South Auckland. This means that the police will catch more criminals, which will be reflected in the statistics. The more police we have, the more rocks they can look under, and that is exactly what is happening.

Sandra Goudie: What steps has the Government taken to help the police cope with family violence?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Actually, the police have an incredibly difficult job. They are called in to clean up after the most horrendous cases of violence and domestic violence, putting their own safety on the line in most of these cases. In addition to the raft of laws effective from 1 December 2009, from July this year the police will be able to issue on-the-spot* protections orders. That means they will be able to remove immediately any alleged violent person from a home for a period of up to 5 days, without having to wait, in some cases, for quite a long time for a court date. It is very important that this Government is backing the police, giving them 600 extra staff and 720 Tasers, and is backing the police when they have to take tough decisions about their safety and the safety of others.

Hon Annette King: What evidence does she have—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Any member of this House is entitled to ask a question.

Hon Annette King: What evidence does she have to back up her claim that welfare dependants—in other words, beneficiaries—are responsible for the explosion of violent crime in New Zealand, which is at the highest rate we have seen in a decade in terms of murders; and is not that claim just a continuation of the despicable attack on beneficiaries aimed at driving a wedge between those the Government believes are battlers and those it writes off as bludgers?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: If that member is going to start to quote me, she should quote the entire piece. I said that intergenerational welfare dependency is actually a driver of crime. If members want to consider that, they should just think about the Harris Brothers* gang, about whom the Minister for Social Development and Employment* alerted the public just a few days ago. Those gang members are on benefits and too sick to work, according to that member.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: To the Minister—

Hon Members: Oh, Oh!

Mr SPEAKER: As I said a moment ago, any member of this House has a right to ask a supplementary question.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: So is the Minister saying that when statistics show more crime under Labour, that means there was more crime, but when the statistics show there is more crime under National, this means the Minister is doing a good job?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I say to that member that not once as the Minister of Police will I ever blame the sun and the moon for a rise in crime, as Annette King did—not once.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take exception to that comment. A retraction of those comments was put in the *New Zealand Herald—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member to resume her seat for a moment. I say to the Government benches, on this occasion, that a point is being heard and it will be heard in silence, although I point out to the honourable member that if she wishes to make a personal explanation she should seek leave to do that.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon Annette King: It was reported in 2007 that I had said that the moon and the weather were responsible for a rise in crime. In fact, what I said was misreported. I was reporting something that was said to me; it was not something that I said. I have corrected that in the House before, and I expect my word to be taken.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member, and that will be the case.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I contest the answer given by the Minister. It did not address the question, at all. It talked about an extraneous quote, which we now know is not true; it did not address the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that if the member reflects he will see that when asking the type of question he asked, he will get an answer that he hardly expects. I think that is what he got, and we

have had a personal explanation to deal with that answer. I cannot expect a more precise answer to that kind of question.

Associate Minister, Social Development and Employment—Statements

5. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social

Development and Employment: Does she agree with all recent comments by her Associate Minister, the Hon Tariana Turia?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I do 99.9 percent of the time.

Hon Annette King: When her Associate Minister, Tariana Turia, claimed on Radio New Zealand on Tuesday that: “At the last minute we were given a copy of the reforms. That makes it really difficult to have an input into them.”, was she given a copy of the proposed benefit reforms called *Future Focus, announced last week, or a copy of the social services 2008 National Party manifesto?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As has been quite clearly identified over the last few days, it is a policy we have been working on for a long time. It was in our manifesto, which we obviously went into the election with. There have been many different versions of it as it went through the normal process. So she has seen the manifesto, she has seen the proposal at the end—the last one—and she saw many copies of it in between, as well.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I made that question very precise. In light of Tariana Turia saying she was given a copy of the policy at the last minute, I asked the Minister whether it was a copy of the proposal announced last week or whether it was a copy of the National Party manifesto.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I pointed out, there have been many different versions that the Minister has seen. I cannot possibly make a comment on which one she was talking about at that time.

Mr SPEAKER: That seems a reasonable answer to that question. Although the member said it was a precise question, if one takes the question in its totality, there is no specific answer to it, given the various versions of the policy that exist, as the Minister has explained. It is a difficult question to answer any more precisely.

Hon Annette King: When she stated in Parliament on Tuesday that the policy had been through the normal process many times, including consultation with the Māori Party on 16 February, well after her Associate Minister returned to work, was she consulting on proposals agreed in principle by Cabinet on 14 December?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: And other developments since then. The member can cut and slice this however she likes. There is no great conspiracy theory. The reality is that there is an immense amount of respect and admiration from me for Minister Turia, and I think she has it in return. I think the work we are doing for children and whānau in this country will be better than we have seen in many, many years.

Hon Annette King: What was her response to the statement of the Associate Minister of Social Development and Employment, the Hon Tariana Turia, on 15 January, issued considerably earlier than she said she would return to work, stating that she intended to challenge the Minister and seek a meeting with her in January to go over the proposed benefit changes because the changes had not been discussed with her? Did this meeting take place?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Minister Turia mentioned yesterday that she had been away for some time, so, no, there had not been a meeting with her prior to that conversation. The member is obviously quoting from 15 January. It is a relationship that is healthy, and that is dynamic; we have conversation. We challenge different areas of the portfolio—

Mr SPEAKER: I am sure it is of great interest what the relationship is, but that is not what the member asked. The member asked specifically what the Minister’s response was to an alleged

document of 15 January, if I remember the question correctly, from the Associate Minister Tariana Turia. Given the primary question, the member may not have that information available today, but I think some attempt to answer that would be helpful to the House, rather than an explanation of the wider relationship.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I heard a quote that she gave from the radio interview, I presume, not a particular paper at that time. I was merely getting to the crux of the relationship, which is what I think this whole conversation is about. I do not think the papers will be running a special edition on the conspiracies of the Labour Party on the relationships that we have with the Māori Party.

Hon Annette King: In light of the obvious confusion about the meaning of consultation with her Associate Minister, can she guarantee that the recent consultation has sorted out that there will be no preferential treatment in *Whānau Ora as promised by the Prime Minister, there will be around $1 billion available for the policy as indicated by Tariana Turia, and that *Te Puni Kōkiri will be running Whānau Ora as implied by the Minister of Māori Affairs?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The only people who I am hearing who are confused about consultation are members on the other side of this House.

Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Key Aspects of Consultation Document

6. PAUL QUINN (National) to the Attorney-General: What are the key aspects of the Government’s preferred approach in the foreshore and seabed consultation document released yesterday?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): The key aspects are: first, to repeal the 2004 Act and replace it with new legislation; second, to remove Crown ownership of the public foreshore and seabed; third, to create a public domain that recognises and balances the interests of all New Zealanders; fourth, to restore any uninvestigated customary title that was extinguished by the 2004 Act; fifth, to restore the fundamental human right to seek access to justice through the courts; and, sixth, to provide for public access and the continued operation of existing use rights.

Paul Quinn: What are the key differences between the current Act and the Government’s preferred approach?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: There are a number. First, it provides for the recognition of customary title, which the current Act extinguished; second, it removes Crown ownership of the public foreshore and seabed, and places it in a public domain; and, third, it restores the fundamental right of New Zealanders to seek access to the courts in this regard.

Hon Peter Dunne: Does the Minister agree that designating the foreshore and seabed as public domain, which United Future has advocated since 2004, is the best way to ensure that the traditional rights and interests of all New Zealanders can be protected? Is this the reason why he is now promoting the creation of a public domain as the Government’s preferred option?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, I do. I acknowledge that United Future has been advocating this position since 2004, and, with respect, I think it is right. I commend the member and his party for the contribution that they have made to this debate.

Paul Quinn: Under the Government’s preferred approach, what rights and practices would be protected?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: There are a number. First, public access to the foreshore and seabed would be provided for; second, any part of the foreshore and seabed that is privately owned would be unaffected, and there are about 12,500 titles around the coastline that fall into that category; third, existing fishing and navigation rights would remain unchanged; and, fourth, all existing use rights, such as costal permits, would remain unchanged until the end of their term. I will add, in this respect. that most New Zealanders will not notice any dramatic change, but that those people who had their rights taken away will.

Hon David Parker: Are the rights that Māori hapū or iwi may obtain under customary title claims under the Government’s preferred approach similar to those achieved by *Ngāti Porou in their agreement with the previous Labour Government?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: They could be. I have studied very closely the Ngāti Porou agreement, which some on the member’s side of the House have characterised as being an agreement under the Foreshore and Seabed Act. In fact, those rights are not the same; they go beyond those provided for in the Act. In analysing the awards and the tests I have endeavoured to look at what is currently there under the 2004 Act and under the Ngāti Porou agreement, then to take that to customary title. In this respect it is different: customary title will be a species of property right. It will not be able to be sold, public access will be retained, and there will also be a right to develop.

Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Prime Minister’s Statement

7. Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his recent comments about proposed changes to the *Foreshore and Seabed Act that “I don’t think people will notice a lot of change.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, because for most New Zealanders public access to the seabed and foreshore will be protected. But for those who gain the right to access the courts again, it will be a significant change.

Hon Parekura Horomia: How can the Prime Minister reconcile that comment with the comment made by the Hon Pita Sharples on *Checkpoint yesterday that this is very different to the current law?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: This whole issue has arisen because of different points of view about what it means for the Crown to have designated ownership of the seabed and foreshore, or for it to be available for claims in customary rights. For those—

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Once again, we cannot hear what the Minister is saying. Nothing provocative is being said—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard and there will not be interjection. I have heard the member’s point of order and it is a perfectly fair point of order. There was absolutely unnecessary noise—from the Opposition benches on this occasion. The Minister was not being provocative. He was asked a serious question and was answering it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to listen to the tape of what Rodney Hide said. First of all he said that he could not hear the Minister, and then he said that nothing provocative was being said. Both cannot be true.

Mr SPEAKER: There is no need to take this matter any further. I am not going to take the matter any further. The member had asked a question, and the Hon Bill English was answering. The question asked how the Minister reconciles some things and the Minister was explaining how he reconciles those things.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Those statements illustrate the challenge of finding a lasting solution to this issue. The fact is that it will look different depending on one’s point of view. Under the proposals in the discussion document, for most New Zealanders there will be little change because their interest in the seabed and foreshore consists of access to it, and that will not change. But many Māori want the opportunity to test their customary rights, and I think Labour members just have to accept that the bill they passed did not amount to a lasting solution. I hope they can apply themselves to finding a lasting solution this time, because last time they failed.

Hon Parekura Horomia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I could not quite hear. Did he just say that there would be little change?

Mr SPEAKER: The member must not seek to litigate an answer by way of point of order.

Hon Parekura Horomia: No, I am asking.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member—[Interruption] A point of order is being heard. If the member could not hear, he has only his colleagues to blame. I invite the Hon David Parker to ask a supplementary question, and I ask members to have a little more reasonableness with interjections.

Hon David Parker: Does the Prime Minister stand by his position, reported on page 1 of the *Dominion Post this morning, that the Government would stick with the status quo if agreement could not be reached?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes.

Taxis—Improving Driver Safety

8. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Minister of Transport: What steps is the Government considering to improve taxi driver safety?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): Yesterday I met with representatives from the taxi industry to discuss options for improving the safety of taxi drivers. After considering all the options, the industry representatives and officials believe that mandating for cameras to be installed in taxis in the main centres would bring the greatest benefits. That is widely supported by the industry. It is unfortunate that we have to consider this step, but two drivers have been murdered recently, and the number of serious assaults has been increasing over the last decade. It is my intention to take recommendations to Cabinet shortly.

Dr Jackie Blue: What benefits would installing cameras in taxis have?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In Australia cameras have proven to be effective in reducing violence against drivers by around 70 percent, and they have reduced fare evasion by a similar amount. In addition, the cameras provide enhanced safety for passengers and can be used by the police when investigating other crimes where the offender has used a taxi. I stress that any introduction of cameras into taxis would be accompanied by rules governing the use of images, to protect the privacy of passengers.

Accident Compensation—New Sexual Abuse Clinical Guidelines

9. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Is he satisfied that the new sexual abuse clinical guidelines used in ACC’s Sensitive Claims Unit are offering “the best treatment possible”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): The new guidelines are a consequence of work initiated under the previous Labour Government. The launch of the *Sexual Abuse and Mental Injury: Practice Guidelines for Aotearoa New Zealand was done by *Steve Maharey in 2008. I have consistently refused to interfere in clinical decisions in this sensitive area, other than to emphasis the importance of *Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) complying with the Act and ensuring these vulnerable claimants receive the best possible clinical treatment. To ensure I am satisfied, this month I am initiating a clinical review.

Lynne Pillay: When will the Minister admit that the new imposed ACC guidelines were not designed by *Massey University, which has publicly disassociated itself from those guidelines; and that those new guidelines do not give the best treatment possible; rather, they re-victimise victims of crime?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is quite the contrary, I assure the member that ACC’s clinical guidelines were based on the research report launched by Steve Maharey and done at Massey University.

Michael Woodhouse: Who has he offered to consult on the membership and terms of reference for the independent clinical review of ACC’s sensitive claims?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In the House and in writing I have offered to consult with the Labour Opposition on both the personnel and the terms of reference for the clinical review. I am disappointed that Labour has refused input, and this shows that Labour is more interested in politics than the genuine clinical care of sexual abuse victims.

Lynne Pillay: Does the Minister not understand that Labour will not participate in this sham review of the ACC pathway, because it would be a complete waste of time and taxpayers’ money, given that ACC’s figures show that 18 months ago some 300 people were approved for counselling each month and now fewer than 12 people are approved in a month?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think what might differ between members of the Government and the Opposition is our view that clinical decisions should be made by clinicians. I am disappointed that when the Opposition was offered a role in the appointment of the independent clinical review, it refused. When I offered to consult with the Opposition about the terms of reference of the review, it refused. It is a bit rich for those members to say the review is a sham when it has not even started.

Lynne Pillay: Is the Minister aware that the *New Zealand Association of Psychotherapists passed a unanimous resolution at its annual conference calling for the imposed ACC sensitive claims pathway to cease and to return to a system that ensures that survivors of sexual abuse receive the support they need and deserve?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I get different views from different clinical professionals. The view I have taken is that my expertise is not in this sensitive area. That is why I have said that the best way forward is an independent clinical review of those guidelines that were launched as a consequence of work, including that by Steve Maharey, done when Labour was in Government.

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Lianne Dalziel.

Lynne Pillay: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise. The member was calling a point of order, but it is withdrawn.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is the Minister saying—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that Lynne Pillay had the call prior to Lianne Dalziel.

Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker is the sole judge of who will be called. I apologise for that interruption.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is the Minister saying that in fact there has been no change to the operation of the guidelines since the National Government has been in place, and has he received any representations from the Minister of Justice about the impact the changes in implementation have had on the work he has been doing in respect of victims of sexual violence?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first point I make is that the Government, as in Ministers, has had absolutely no influence on the work of the clinical guidelines, because I have taken the quite appropriate view as a Minister that it is not for me to be involved in setting—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very straight question: “Is the Minister saying that the guidelines are being implemented exactly as they were prior to the change in Government?”. The Minister is attempting to talk about whether he has had any interference. There was nothing in my question that asked whether there was ministerial interference. I would have to assume that that would be—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat. The member’s point of order is perfectly fair up until that point—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: —I am on my feet—questioning whether the Minister was answering her question. The question asked whether the implementation of the guidelines changed, as I understand it, from those being administered by the previous Government. The member wanted to raise a point of order in response, and I will hear the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The difficulty with the member’s question is that she asserted that the Government had changed the process of the guidelines, implying that Ministers had. I wanted to make it plain to the House that that assertion—

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is entering into debate. I suggest that the easiest way to resolve this is to ask the member to repeat her question without penalty and for her to keep it brief. If she adds further phrases to it, the Minister is at liberty to pick on whatever part he chooses.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is the Minister saying that the guidelines are being implemented exactly as they were being implemented prior to the change of Government, and has he received any representations from the Minister of Justice about the impact that the change in implementation has had on the work that is being done with victims of sexual violence?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I have had a number of discussions with the Minister of Justice about this sensitive area. In respect of the guidelines, the new ACC guidelines were based on the guidelines developed by Massey University, which were launched by Steve Maharey in March 2008.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: The Minister has done exactly the same thing again. I asked whether—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat. I listened very carefully to the member’s question. I have warned the member about adding two parts to a question. The Minister picked up on the second part of the question and answered it perfectly fairly and properly, and that is as far as I can assist the member. The remedy is in members’ hands when asking questions.

Lynne Pillay: I seek leave to table a copy of a resolution that was passed unanimously by psychotherapists calling for a halt to the imposed ACC pathway, and a return to—

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.

Lynne Pillay: I seek leave to table my correspondence to the Hon Nick Smith stating that Labour would not participate confidentially in an ACC review process—

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

Lynne Pillay: I seek leave to table correspondence from Massey University* stating the rules for sexual abuse claims were not developed by Massey University, but by ACC itself.

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

Canterbury—Hurunui River Water Conservation Order Application

10. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: When did he first learn that the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon David Carter, had spoken to applicants for a water conservation order on the *Hurunui River suggesting they freeze that application, and what action, if any, did he subsequently take?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yesterday. The Prime Minister’s office then talked to the Minister’s office to establish the facts of the situation.

Dr Russel Norman: Can he guarantee that prior to yesterday he had not received any reports or correspondence alerting him to the fact that David Carter had asked the applicants for the **water conservation order to freeze it?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The facts of the matter, as I understand them, are that in conjunction with the Hurunui Mayor, **Garry Jackson, and **Bede O’Malley, chair of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy* steering group, the Minister of Agriculture discussed with all parties involved in the water conservation order process, including the *Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, the possibility of an integrated approach to try to avoid the issue’s escalating to the *Environment Court. This collaborative approach was undertaken in an attempt to avoid the combative and expensive court route, and reflects the approach recommended by the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. All parties were initially positive about this approach, but subsequently some withdrew their support and decided to proceed with the Environment Court action.

Dr Russel Norman: In light of that answer, which confirms the fact that the Minister of Agriculture approached the parties before they went to the Environment Court, does he stand by the

statement he made in the House yesterday that it was a *“wild and unproven” allegation for me to bring this matter to his attention?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the unproven element of the allegation was that somehow the Minister was acting out of personal interest. Of course, he was not; he was acting as the Minister of Agriculture, trying to bring together a collaborative strategy to get a better result for the management of water in Canterbury. That is what we would expect the Minister of Agriculture to be doing.

Dr Russel Norman: Is he concerned by the contradiction between David Carter’s answer to written question No. *14809 from October last year, when he said that he had not discussed the water conservation order process with any of the parties associated with the Hurunui River, and his press release of yesterday, which said that he had?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister of Agriculture has been quite open, publicly and with the Prime Minister, about the facts of the matter. The member should take up the issue of the parliamentary question with the Minister.

Dr Russel Norman: Is it an acceptable standard of behaviour for a Minister to answer a written question *“No.” when asked whether he had discussed with any of the parties plans for an appeal against the application for a water conservation order on the Hurunui River, and then in his press release yesterday to say that he had discussed it with the parties?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We would not want to jump to conclusions on the basis of that member’s description, but all Ministers should strive for accuracy in answering parliamentary questions. I think the important point here is that the Minister was attempting to adopt the collaborative approach that has been behind the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. In the end, that did not work, and the parties ended up choosing the expensive court process.

Dr Russel Norman: I know that you do not agree with the tabling of questions generally, Mr Speaker, but the Deputy Prime Minister has just said in his answer that he does not take my word for what the question said. So I seek leave to table the answer to the question.

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister did not actually say that he did not take the member’s word, at all. I did not take that implication from what he said. The problem I have is that the written answer is available to all members. I hesitate to seek leave to table such a document when it is readily available to all members. The member has more supplementary questions.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to consider something. We are seeing examples at question time where a questioner says: “The Minister said this …” or “The Prime Minister said that …”, when what is being said is clearly not correct. We saw it just then, and you picked up on it in the point of order, where, in actual fact, the statement made by point of order was not strictly correct. It gets read into the *Hansard and interpreted by the media as something entirely different. I accept that it is harder in question time, but I think to introduce incorrect statements on points of order is a mistake.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need to hear further on this. I do not think we need to take further time of the House. I respect the member’s point of order, because it was to do with the order of the House. But I believe that the member is reading more into this situation than deserves to be read into it. I think that what the Deputy Prime Minister said was available for interpretation and that a member could have felt that it was questioning the member’s word. Therefore, I do not consider that Dr Russel Norman was misrepresenting the situation when he then sought my view as to whether he could table the answer to a written question. It is a very marginal case, but I do not believe that the Deputy Prime Minister impugned the member’s integrity; neither do I believe that the member was totally wrong in feeling that the Deputy Prime Minister might have done. I think that on this occasion it is not worth taking more time of the House. The member’s questions have been dealt with, with what I think was a lot of sincerity by the Deputy Prime Minister in trying to

answer the member’s questions. The member has further supplementary questions should he wish to—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A similar problem happened yesterday, I think, as well. I think that this problem could be resolved if members, when quoting from answers to written questions, gave the number of the question. That means that members can go back and trace it. It is quite hard to find it otherwise.

Mr SPEAKER: In fairness to Dr Russel Norman, I say that, if I remember correctly, he gave the number of the question. I think on this matter we are all being just a little bit sensitive. The member is pursuing a matter of interest to him with his supplementary questions in a fairly effective way. I ask him to continue.

Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister aware that under the resource consent on the Hon David Carter’s farm on the Hurunui River, the irrigation is required to stop when the water in the river goes below a minimum flow, and that if the Hurunui irrigation scheme goes ahead, the water in that river will be maintained above that flow and the irrigation on Mr Carter’s farm will be enhanced as a result?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not aware of the details of the consent on the Minister’s farm. I am aware that he has been involved with discussions around irrigation in Canterbury for a number of years. The circumstances of his farm ownership are well known.

Dr Russel Norman: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Minister of Agriculture has had any involvement in any discussions in Cabinet or Cabinet committees regarding the changes to Environment Canterbury?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister for Agriculture has an interest both in his capacity as Minister and in his capacity as a Canterbury member of Parliament. He has participated, as most Ministers in Cabinet have, in work on general policy matters relating to Environment Canterbury.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked whether he could guarantee whether the Minister of Agriculture had been involved in any of those discussions in Cabinet and Cabinet committees.

Mr SPEAKER: I listened to the Deputy Prime Minister’s answer quite carefully, and I believe he just told the House that the Minister had been.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a letter from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society to the Prime Minister, dated December last year, regarding the intervention of the Minister of Agriculture in the water conservation order.

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.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a file note from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society’s South Island manager regarding the intervention of the Minister of Agriculture in the water conservation order process.

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

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a map that illustrates the relationship of the Hon David Carter’s farm to the Hurunui irrigation project area.

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

Question No. 9 to Minister

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): I seek leave to table my letter to the Opposition on 24 March last year, offering to consult with Opposition members on the clinical review of the sensitive claims mentioned.

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

Question No. 3 to Minister

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): Just while we are in tabling mode, and bearing in mind your rulings, I seek leave to table a document from the Hon *John Banks, Mayor of Auckland, in which he states: “The latest crime statistics shame this country and create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation”—

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just seek guidance: is this is a press release, or is it a—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Yes, and if I could just tell you why—

Hon Members: Oh!

Mr SPEAKER: This is a point of order, and it will be heard in silence.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Bearing in mind, as I said at the start, your rulings about matters not being freely available to this House, the reason I seek an exception in this case is that this release was released only a matter of an hour or two ago, and will not be available to this House.

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

Building—Introduction of Building License System

11. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What progress has he made in terms of introducing a building licence system that will give New Zealanders confidence in the skills of the builders they employ?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): I have good news. From today the number of licence classes for builders and designers will reduce from six to two, making the licensing process much simpler. That means competent professionals will now find it easier to find the licence that is right for them. From today there will be just one licence for design and another for site practitioners. Reducing the number of licences cuts costs and makes licensing a whole lot easier. We listened to the industry, and we took its feedback on board. The message was clear: the system was too complex and cumbersome. Today we have fixed it.

Melissa Lee: What other streamlining changes has the Minister made recently?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: In February I launched a product called the *Better Building Blueprint, which has a range of measures. We made it quicker and cheaper to get consents for designs being built across the country through what we call the **National Multiple-use Approval Service.

Hon Simon Power: Excellent.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I know my colleague wants the House to carry on, so I will try to be brief. We introduced a streamlined approvals process for qualified tradespeople to become licensed builders. We launched a consultation paper on improving the *Building Act by cutting red tape and bureaucracy without compromising quality. The list could go on for the rest of the afternoon. It is all good news.

Phil Twyford: What reports has he seen on the last time a National Government changed the building regulations and shut down apprenticeship, in the 1990s, and what impact did that have on the confidence of New Zealanders in the skills of the builders they employ?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I am reminded by a colleague alongside me that the Hon George Hawkins has said that Labour’s work achieved all that had been done. But this Government is focused on the future and on getting some damn good product out there for the people without compromising quality. We are not looking backwards.

Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister what reports he had seen on the last time a National Government changed the building regulations.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I listened carefully to the member’s question. He made all sorts of claims of supposed fact in the question, and the Minister responded in any way he chose. With that kind of question, he really was at liberty to do so.

Mining in Conservation Areas—Coromandel

12. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: Will she be visiting the Coromandel during Easter to gauge for herself the depth of resentment against proposals to allow mining of sensitive schedule 4 land?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation): I have prior engagements this *Easter, but I am wondering about what other invitations the member has in mind.

Hon David Parker: When did the Minister last visit the Coromandel?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I have visited the Coromandel in my capacity as either the Minister of Conservation or the Associate Minister of Conservation. If the member wants to know the specific date, I can certainly provide that at a later stage.

Hon David Parker: Why does the Minister not acknowledge that because Auckland has no mainland national parks, the protection of conservation lands in the Coromandel is all the more important?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I am mindful of the protection of conservation lands, and that is one of the reasons why we have a discussion paper out there for submission. It is actually a discussion paper, not a decisions paper.

Hon David Parker: Is the Government’s decision to undermine water conservation orders in Canterbury, which occurred under urgency this week, yet another example of how her Cabinet colleagues are ignoring her efforts to advocate for the environment; or did she support the undermining of the water conservation orders on the *Rākaia and *Rangitata Rivers and of the application relating to the Hurunui River?

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable Minister, I must say that that is a fairly long stretch from the primary question about visiting the Coromandel during Easter to gauge feeling about—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I am still considering this point of order. But I will hear the Hon Dr Nick Smith, so long as it is a genuine point of order.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The legislation is very clear that responsibility for water conservation orders rests with the Minister for the Environment, not the Minister of Conservation.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member for that clarification. Because this is the last question in this sitting of Parliament, I will invite the Hon David Parker to ask a further supplementary question that is a little closer to his primary question.

Hon David Parker: Was the Government’s decision to proceed with the consideration of mining in Coromandel, but to exclude consideration of mining in *Kahurangi National Park because although it was worried that it would lose Nick Smith’s seat, it was not too worried about Sandra Goudie’s?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: We have made no such decision to proceed. We made a decision to release a discussion paper. I would ask why it is OK for a Labour Government to approve and allow mining in, or on, national parks, but it is not OK for the National Government even to discuss it and talk about it.

ENDS

© Scoop Media