Questions & Answers For Oral Answer - 15 June 2010

1. Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Announcements
Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Attorney-General

2. New Zealand Post—Privatisation
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister

3. Youth Initiatives—Youth Development Programmes
NICKY WAGNER (National) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment

4. Welfare Reforms—Minister’s Statements
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment

5. Canterbury Water Management—Government Finance for Infrastructure
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister

6. Corrections, Department—Management of Parole
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Corrections

7. Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Te Puni Kōkiri Advice on Recent Proposals
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Minister of Māori Affairs

8. Aerial Spraying—Petition and Submissions
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister for the Environment

9. District Health Boards—Minister’s Statements
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health

10. Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Relationship to Treaty of Waitangi
RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Attorney-General

11. Budget 2010—Pacific Economic Development Agency Representatives
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) to the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs

12. Mining—Underground Coal Gasification Pilot Plant
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Energy and Resources

1. Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Announcements

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

1. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Attorney-General: What recent announcements have been made about the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : Yesterday Cabinet, the Māori Party, and the iwi leaders agreed to address the major grievances associated with the 2004 Act, including removing Crown ownership in favour of a non-ownership model, restoring that fundamental human right of access to justice, and providing for the recognition of uninvestigated customary title.

Hon Tau Henare: Will New Zealanders notice much of a difference under the replacement legislation?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: New Zealanders who were largely unaffected by the 2004 Act will notice very little difference, as public access and existing use rights are protected. However, Māori, who were so disproportionately affected by the 2004 Act, will notice significant improvements, as their fundamental legal rights will be upheld and they will be able to go to the courts or negotiate with the Crown for the recognition of basic property rights, including those to customary title.

Hon Tau Henare: How have negotiations with the Māori Party and iwi leaders progressed over the last 19 months?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Negotiations have at all times been principled and, indeed, very pragmatic. I thank the iwi for the hospitality and courtesy shown to me during the many hui that I attended. I also acknowledge the constructive and invaluable contribution of the Māori Party. I single out the contribution of Mrs Turia, whose courage and conviction throughout this process, and, indeed, since 2003 have been an inspiration. In moving forward, New Zealand owes Mrs Turia a great debt.

Hon David Parker: In what way does vesting the foreshore and seabed as public space give any group more or fewer rights than vesting it as Crown land?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Vesting the foreshore in the way that is proposed removes the “weeping sore”, as the Prime Minister called it, of absolute vesting in the Crown, and provides a staging post so that individual iwi, or hapū in some circumstances, will be able to investigate customary title.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. I asked how anyone gets more or fewer rights as a consequence of the change. The Minister did not address that question.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the Minister just to focus specifically on the issue raised, because one could perhaps imply certain things from the Minister’s answer. As that might be risky, the Minister should just make very clear what he means in relation to that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I think you mean “infer” certain things.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The point of the matter is that it will still be the obligation of an iwi who is unable to conclude satisfactory negotiations to prove certain things to a tribunal, so at the end of the day the onus of proof will still be on iwi in that respect.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question asked what the extra rights or fewer rights are, and that still has not been answered.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister has given a further answer, and there are further supplementary questions available. This is question No. 1, and the member could ask exactly the same question again if he is not satisfied. But I think the Minister has given a further answer on that specific point. It may not have satisfied the member, but it was an attempt to answer it.

Hon David Parker: Does vesting the foreshore and seabed as public space, rather than Crown land, give any claimant group more or fewer rights?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I would have thought it was self-evident from my previous answer that there is no change in respect of the position that must be adopted by iwi who make a claim or have to negotiate with the Crown.

David Garrett: Is it correct that under the proposed legislation the Crown will be able, after negotiation, to grant iwi customary title, and having secured that title will iwi be able to grant coastal permits and resource consents, instead of the local council?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, and no.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Does the Minister accept that the same legal test should be applied in direct negotiations as will have to be applied by claimants in the courts?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes.

David Garrett: Which parts of the New Zealand coastline, if any, will not be subject to the grant of customary title under which iwi will effectively control activities along it, including reclamation, the construction and removal of structures, etc.?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Huge amounts.

2. New Zealand Post—Privatisation

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Can he rule out ever initiating the privatisation of New Zealand Post?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : In terms of State-owned enterprises in general the Government has not at this stage given any consideration to future asset sales. Therefore, I cannot rule things in or out. As I have said many times before, if the policy changes we will be very open about it and campaign on it at the next election. In addition to the general policy, I have ruled out any future privatisation of Kiwibank. For the member’s benefit, I note that that obviously rules out the full or partial sale of any parent company.

Hon Phil Goff: Given that he cannot rule out the sale of New Zealand Post as the parent company of Kiwibank—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: He just did.

Hon Phil Goff: —no, no—why should New Zealanders believe that it is anything other than a sham for him now to say that he will not sell Kiwibank?

Hon JOHN KEY: If the Leader of the Opposition listened to my answers, he would be doing a little bit better.

Hon Phil Goff: If there is to be no sale of Kiwibank, why did Bill English, his Minister of Finance, raise that as a possibility following the Budget; and why did he, the Prime Minister, indicate at his post-Cabinet press conference on 31 May that that was an option to be considered?

Hon JOHN KEY: He did not; he used it as a hypothetical example.

Hon Phil Goff: When the Prime Minister was asked in the House on 26 May whether he ruled out initiating the sale of Kiwibank, why did he not simply answer “Yes.”?

Hon JOHN KEY: Because I thought I would keep you waiting for another day.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House, as you know, is the arena where Opposition members, on behalf of the New Zealand public, have the opportunity to hold the Government to account. My question was a serious question, because clearly the Prime Minister was considering the sale of Kiwibank at that stage. Do you believe that a flippant reply like that is adequate when most New Zealanders are asking that same question?

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard. Front-bench members on both sides should cease interjecting. When members ask Ministers why they have chosen to do something, Ministers are at liberty to say why. Members asking the questions might not think that the “why” is that great, but it is certainly the prerogative of Ministers to say why. The only thing the Prime Minister should not have done was to say that he wanted to keep “you” waiting, because the Speaker is not involved in this matter. But the quality of the answer was up to the Prime Minister.

Hon Phil Goff: When the Prime Minister indicated a fortnight ago that he would consider, or would not rule out considering, the privatisation of Kiwibank, had he forgotten that in the lead-up to the last election he promised nine times not to sell, or had he simply hoped that everyone else had forgotten?

Hon JOHN KEY: No. As I just said earlier on, not only have I ruled out selling Kiwibank but I have ruled out selling a parent company of Kiwibank. But if I ever did change my mind and decide I wanted to sell a post office, the person I would refer to most would be Phil Goff, because the last person who sold a post office did so in 1989 and it was Phil Goff.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask both sides of the House to settle down a little.

Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Prime Minister tell the House on 26 May this year that “No consideration has been given to selling any State-owned enterprises yet.”, when John Whitehead, the Secretary to the Treasury, told the Finance and Expenditure Committee that Treasury was working on the question of the privatisation of State-owned enterprises?

Hon JOHN KEY: Because the first part of my statement was absolutely correct.

3. Youth Initiatives—Youth Development Programmes

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

3. NICKY WAGNER (National) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the Government doing to support young people in youth development programmes?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : Last week we announced $250,000 from the Services for Young People Fund, to support 21 youth programmes across New Zealand. Seven regions will receive over $20,000 each. The Onehunga Father and Child Trust, Auckland City Matariki Youth, and the Kapiti Youth Support Trust are just a few organisations that have received this extra funding.

Nicky Wagner: How will this funding support young people in Christchurch?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am pleased to let the member know that the extra funding will support a number of local youth initiatives, including support for young teen mums. The St Albans Youth Programme supports young mums to gain confidence and develop the skills they need to be the best parents for their children. Funding will also support developing youth community leadership.

Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm that the Government support for youth development programmes has in fact decreased in the Budget; if so, can she advise the House whether this will lead to further cuts similar to those we have already seen to providers of youth services such as the National Youth Workers Network, New Zealand Aotearoa Adolescent Health and Development, youth health centres, and Youthline, just to name a few?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As in any Budget round, there have been changes to some contracts, but certainly there has not been less money going in, at all. In fact, there is more. The Ministry of Youth Development has been concentrating on a “range, reach, and relevance” initiative, which means that the Ministry is reaching twice as many young people, with the same funding, through the programmes it is doing.

Chris Auchinvole: How will this funding support young people in the West Coast and Tasman?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: An extra $20,000 will go into local youth initiatives in Westport, Motueka, and Greymouth. That is supporting outreach services for isolated young people, advice for teens, and outdoor adventure programmes.

4. Welfare Reforms—Minister’s Statements

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What did she mean when she said in relation to welfare reform “We may even see an ugly side to New Zealand.”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : Let me assure the member that I did not mean her or her colleagues. What I actually said was—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to consider the first part of the response to the question, and to rule whether it was in order. It was a simple question. It was not a political question. There was a lot of notice of it. You have given warnings in this area before.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member. I did not hear the answer clearly, because of the noise level, but from the bits I heard I believe that it was not helpful. I ask the Minister to withdraw that first comment. I did not hear it. I ask her to withdraw it and start the answer again.

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did hear the answer, and the Minister made it very clear that she was not casting any comments about—

Mr SPEAKER: I have heard enough. I think one would be fairly naive if one did not realise what the Minister was getting at. I do not think it was helpful to the order of the House, at all. That is why I ask the Minister to withdraw that part and start the answer again.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I withdraw. I actually said: “This debate could spark prejudices. We may even see an ugly side to New Zealand. But I believe we will also see hope and aspiration. Compassion and understanding.”

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to look at my question, which was on notice. I asked: “What did she mean when she said in relation to welfare reform ‘We may even see an ugly side to New Zealand.’?”. She did not explain what she meant by that.

Mr SPEAKER: With respect, I have to say that where Ministers are asked what they mean by a certain statement, it is very difficult for any of us to judge the answer. She has just explained what she meant. The quality of the answer is up to the public to judge.

Hon Annette King: What comments, particularly from leaders in our community, does she believe could lead to an ugly side of New Zealand being revealed in relation to beneficiaries; could it be comments like they are living “the dream”, or that beneficiaries “sit around all day watching Sky Television, living off the taxpayer, letting their children run riot and getting stoned”—both quotes from National Ministers, including her?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: To be clear, the last comment was not my own. But let me be clear that the welfare debate is a very important one to New Zealand. If we do not get the welfare system right, and if we do not do something about it, then in generations to come we will not find it sustainable. So we are going to have this debate, we are going to do it without those sorts of prejudices, and I am quite proud to be leading it.

Katrina Shanks: What are other countries doing to address long-term dependency?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The problem is not unique to New Zealand. The Welfare Working Group is looking at other jurisdictions. Recent international announcements include Ireland announcing it will stop sole-parent benefits when the youngest child is 14, and Australia deciding to work-test 233,000 single parents with a youngest child aged 7 or over for part-time work. In the UK the new coalition Government has announced that it will replace all existing welfare-to-work initiatives with a single programme to get people into jobs.

Hon Annette King: With her so-called unrelenting focus on work, has she seen the recent Human Rights Commission project called Focus on Work—which is being undertaken in 16 regions throughout New Zealand, with 300 employers—which shows that the lack of jobs is the critical component as to why people are not working, and that people overwhelmingly want to get back to work; and did she consider that evidence before deciding that too many New Zealanders were choosing a life of dependency?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: To be clear, about 30 percent of beneficiaries have been on welfare for 4 years or more. That was in the previous decade, when we supposedly saw more jobs that we have ever seen. That tells us there certainly are people who, when work was available, were not taking it up. We want to look at how we can support them differently, how we can help them into work and into jobs as they become available.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I invite the Hon Annette King to ask a further question, she asked in her last question whether the Minister had seen a certain report, and I must say that I am none the wiser as to whether the Minister had seen it. Would the Minister care to answer that?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: In all fairness, I have seen so many reports in the last few months that I do not want to directly say whether I have seen that one; I cannot recall.

Hon Annette King: Are the attendees at her recent Welfare Working Group forum correct in their view that she is picking up where Ruth Richardson and Jenny Shipley left off, with actions that led, among other things, to a sharp rise in child poverty and the widening of the gap between rich and poor; if not, why not?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think the member is quoting from John Armstrong’s article on Saturday. I have the Dominion Post editorial from yesterday, which, contrary to some of those opinions, states: “it is past time for the Government-appointed Welfare Working Group’s re-examination of welfare in New Zealand. … Something is clearly wrong when 324,914 working-age people [are reliant on benefits].” We are looking at it, we have a cross-section of people looking at it, we have people with a variety of views and opinions going through it, and it will be interesting to see where it ends up.

Hon Annette King: When she put out a statement claiming that a recent report entitled Realising the Health Benefits of Work underscored the need for welfare reform, had she read the whole report; if so, did she agree with the researchers who found that 41 percent of those on the sickness benefit had psychological or psychiatric conditions, and that mental illness might arise as a result of unreasonable work pressures on them; if so, will she ensure that mentally unwell people are not forced into work that leads to further health problems?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, I have read it, and I have read all of it. I would say that it also raises for us the fact that there is no simple solution to that sort of welfare dependency. We have been quite clearly saying that more support may be needed. We may need to look at that whole dependence quite differently as to how we help people with mental illnesses into work, and stay helping them for quite some time. The reason we have not been prescriptive, and have actually made the terms of reference very broad, is so that we can explore those very issues.

5. Canterbury Water Management—Government Finance for Infrastructure

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

5. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Did he tell the Prime Minister’s South Island Forum that the Government would “front up with some cash” for water infrastructure in Canterbury, as reported in the Press on 12 June 2010?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : That particular story stretches things a little bit, but I can confirm for the member that the Government is keen to see progress on water storage and irrigation. We have been focusing on removing regulatory roadblocks but, under the right circumstances, we would also consider some form of financial involvement in order to get things moving. As I said in my statement to Parliament, we want to make sure that water storage and irrigation projects that meet environmental standards and that are good economic propositions can happen within a decent time frame.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy that “Even if resource consents could be obtained for new infrastructure on this scale it would be uneconomic to build.”; if so, why would the Government even contemplate subsidising irrigation projects that do not have an economic return?

Hon JOHN KEY: That statement seems to refer to one particular project. I cannot believe it applies to all of the projects, because not all of them have been priced up. On that basis, I would not agree with that statement.

Dr Russel Norman: Is he aware that intensive irrigated corporate dairying has already drained and polluted many of Canterbury’s rivers, and that more intensive irrigated dairying will only drain more water from our precious braided rivers?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I am aware that increasing intensification of dairying in the South Island is having an effect on the water table; that is the very reason why building water storage in the South Island makes so much sense.

Brendon Burns: Was the Prime Minister briefed on the 20 December 2008 Water Infrastructure Forum in Christchurch promoting irrigation for Canterbury, attended by three of his senior Ministers, and was he aware that one Wyatt Creech was also briefed about that forum via David Carter’s political adviser within 2 days of it being held?

Hon JOHN KEY: I have no recollection of whether I was briefed on that forum.

Brendon Burns: Can the Prime Minister explain why Mr Creech, 11 months before he was appointed as an independent consultant to head an independent review of Environment Canterbury, was taking an intense interest via a Minister’s office in the same Canterbury irrigation issues as the Prime Minister?

Hon JOHN KEY: I have no ministerial responsibility for Wyatt Creech.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was about something that happened via a Minister’s office. My submission to you is that saying that someone has no responsibility for Wyatt Creech, when clearly the Prime Minister does have responsibility for all his Ministers’ offices and the briefings they give, is not a satisfactory answer.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The question was whether the Prime Minister could explain why Mr Creech was taking an interest. Clearly it is not his role to explain why Mr Creech was taking an interest. Mr Creech, of course, is a prominent New Zealander who has a great interest in these matters. It is not unreasonable, at all.

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I will enable Brendon Burns, if he wants to, to rephrase the question to try to bring it within the Prime Minister’s responsibility, rather than just losing a question. He does not have to; it is just if he would like to.

Brendon Burns: Could the Prime Minister say why Mr Creech, 11 months before he was appointed as an independent consultant heading an independent review of Environment Canterbury, was taking an intense interest via a Minister’s office in the same issues as the Prime Minister was taking?

Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Brendon Burns: I seek the leave of the House to table an Official Information Act document, which shows Wyatt Creech wanting a “comprehensive picture” of Canterbury irrigation and Resource Management Act issues from David Carter’s office—

Mr SPEAKER: Can we have the source of the document?

Brendon Burns: It is an Official Information Act request to the Minister’s office. It is an email exchange.

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: Has the Prime Minister seen the latest Landcare Research annual report, which states that intensified agriculture is currently driving the fastest rate of loss of native vegetation since European colonisation; if so, why is he thinking of subsidising more intensification in Canterbury, with the result that more native vegetation will be lost?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, and I cannot believe that irrigating land that already has a form of agriculture taking place on it, just not to the level of intensification that would be possible with irrigation, would affect native vegetation.

Dr Russel Norman: Is he concerned that 10 percent of groundwater wells monitored in Canterbury last year had nitrate levels exceeding the drinking-water standard, and that converting thousands of hectares to irrigated dairying will only increase nitrogen leaching in Canterbury?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. In relation to the second part of the question, I do not think the member can actually make that statement.

Dr Russel Norman: Is he concerned that the Canterbury medical officer of health has already warned that high levels of nitrate in groundwater could put infants at risk of death from blue baby syndrome, and that converting thousands of hectares of Canterbury land to irrigated dairying will only increase the risk?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, and that is why we replaced Environment Canterbury. It was so that we can have an effective water plan in place in a quicker amount of time than the 19 years Environment Canterbury took yet still failed to put a water plan in place.

Dr Russel Norman: How much taxpayer cash does he plan to front up for these uneconomic irrigation schemes, which cannot attract commercial funding, will result in massive environmental destruction, will put human health at risk, and are really just another form of corporate welfare?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, if the member stuck to some facts in his questions he might get a more satisfactory answer. But anyway, the Government could put some cash into these projects if at the end of the process they were proved to be economic over time. There may be some cash-flow issues; that has been the case in previous irrigation schemes. I might add that the previous Government set up the Community Irrigation Fund, which also put some cash into irrigation schemes. This Government will probably put quite a bit more into that fund.

6. Corrections, Department—Management of Parole

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

6. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Corrections: What advice has she received about the management of parole by Department of Corrections since a highly critical report by the Auditor-General in 2009?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) : I am pleased to report that significant progress has been made into the way that the Department of Corrections manages parole. Community Probation and Psychological Services has completed all 46 action points in a comprehensive improvement plan and recruited the extra staff funded in Budget 2009 specifically to improve the management of parole. It has also completed a major redesign of the way that parole is managed. This valuable progress will help to reduce the risk to public safety posed by people who have been released into the community on parole.

Sandra Goudie: What other reports has the Minister received regarding improvements to Community Probation and Psychological Services?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Under the guidance of an expert panel, Community Probation and Psychological Services has developed a 3-year change programme that will fundamentally change the way that all probation activities are undertaken, not just parole activities. The framework identifies mandatory standards that must be met for every offender, introduces the use of a new tool to assess the changing risk that an offender presents, and provides staff with a decision framework to ensure that the right actions are taken with the right offender at the right time. It is now being phased in. The probation service is now back on track after years of under-investment by the previous Government, which ran its services down to the ground.

7. Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Te Puni Kōkiri Advice on Recent Proposals

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

7. Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Has he received any reports from Te Puni Kōkiri on the benefits for Māori in having foreshore and seabed vested in “public space” rather than Crown ownership?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs) : I have received advice from Te Puni Kōkiri on various aspects of the proposed replacement regime for the Foreshore and Seabed Act, including advice on different ownership options, and how this new regime will restore the mana and dignity to Māori that was removed in the 2004 Act.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Does he agree with the Hon Tariana Turia, who described vesting the foreshore and seabed in Crown ownership as confiscation; if so, how is vesting it in public space any different from that—and is it outer space, inner space, or lost in space?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: There is a big difference between Crown ownership and non-ownership—a big difference.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Does he agree with MP Hone Harawira that the process being used is “bullshit” and pandering to the rednecks; if not, why not?

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility for members of our party, and in that case that question is out of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need to hear any further on the matter. [Interruption] I am on my feet. Traditionally, members are able to ask Ministers whether they agree with the views of other people, as long as the view that is being expressed is about a matter that is very much the Minister’s responsibility. If the matter is not the Minister’s responsibility, then it is up to the Minister to tell the House that. Being asked whether he agrees with an opinion on a matter is, I believe, in order, but the matter that the opinion relates to must be the Minister’s responsibility.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: No.

Hone Harawira: Hoi anō, e tū ana au kia whakatēpungia te pānui o te hīkoi takutai moana mai i te tau 2004, me tōna karanga ki te kāwanatanga o Reipa, kia kaua e pāhi i te ture tāhae takutai moana.

[I seek leave to table a notice regarding the foreshore and seabed march in 2004 that calls for the Labour Government not to pass the thieving foreshore bill.]

Anei nā taku pānui.

[Here indeed is my notice.]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable member. I did not pick up the interpretation.

Hone Harawira: Māku e whakapākehātia. I will translate.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate that.

Hone Harawira: I seek leave to table the pamphlet of the 2004 foreshore and seabed hīkoi, calling upon the Labour Government to withdraw its foreshore and seabed legislation.

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.
•
8. Aerial Spraying—Petition and Submissions

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

8. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister for the Environment: What reports, if any, has he received about a petition and submissions calling on the National Government to halt aerial deployment of aerosolized chemicals and biological agents that will result in irreparable, toxic, long-term heavy-metal poisoning and illness of the populace and environment?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) : I received a petition and submissions on Saturday from a group called the Clear Skies Action Group. It claims that the American Government, with the secret approval of the National Government, is covertly using jet aircraft to spray population centres with aluminium, barium, and strontium so as to reduce people’s immunity and to reduce the global population. The apparent motive behind this conspiracy theory is one world government.

Chris Auchinvole: What advice has the Minister received on the organisation and distribution of the petition?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The chief petitioner, Mr Will Ryan, advises me that he has secured dozens of signatures in Nelson and that the action group has support in Whangarei, Hamilton, Ōtaki, and Kaikōura. Mr Ryan also advised me that he had the support of Maryan Street, Labour’s new foreign affairs spokesperson, and that she was very concerned about what the Americans and the CIA were doing. She agreed to place a poster on the issue up in her office, collect signatures, and present the petition to Parliament, seeking a full public inquiry.

Chris Auchinvole: What correspondence or other information has the Minister received expressing public support for the group and its concerns about the deliberate chemical contamination of the population by jet aircraft?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The petition forms circulating in Nelson and presented to me had the Labour Party logo and list MP Maryan Street’s address on them. The same concerns are reflected in an article referred to me by the group in Investigate magazine and by its editor, Ian Wishart. I have also seen correspondence from Labour list MP Mr Darren Hughes raising concerns on behalf of his constituents about the issue. I want to assure the House that both my ministry and my colleague the Minister of Health have received correspondence on this issue, that this conspiracy theory does not have an iota of truth, and that the trails observed from aircraft simply come from jet engines.

Charles Chauvel: Why has the Minister neglected to convey a full and frank impression of the matter to the House by failing to mention that Maryan Street described the petition is his local newspaper as: “the purest form of conspiracy theory I’ve seen in a long time.”, and—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. I cannot hear with the level of interjection. I invite Charles Chauvel to start his question again.

Charles Chauvel: Why has the Minister neglected to convey a full and frank impression of the matter to the House by failing to mention that Maryan Street described the petition is his local newspaper as the purest form of conspiracy theory she had seen in a long time; and was there perhaps something in the local water when he made the comments that have just cost the taxpayer over $200,000 in legal fees?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I base my statements on the comments made by the chief petitioner, Mr Will Ryan, who assured me that Maryan Street had given her enthusiastic support for the petition. I have checked today, and in the cafes of Nelson the petition in the name of the Labour Party continues to be distributed. I think it is appalling that the new Labour spokesperson on foreign affairs is spreading conspiracy theories—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —about the United States Government.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the House has heard sufficient.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave of the House to table the petition that is being circulated in Nelson under the name of the New Zealand Labour Party and with Maryan Street’s name and address on it.

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.
•
Charles Chauvel: I seek leave to table the comments of Maryan Street describing the petition in the terms that I referred to in a supplementary question.

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

9. District Health Boards—Minister’s Statements

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

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

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) : Yes, including the statement that the Government is investing in health the highest percentage of GDP ever, and at the same time health boards are increasing their front-line services.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How does he reconcile his past outrage, when he said in the House: “What is the point of having whistleblower legislation, when, if someone does the right thing—speaks out for the community—that person is hunted down and taken down by the Government’s henchmen?”, with his total silence on the muzzling of MidCentral District Health Board health staff in relation to health cuts in their region?

Hon TONY RYALL: One is aware of numerous comments from health staff in the MidCentral District Health Board area. I can tell that member that the MidCentral District Health Board is getting an additional $13 million this year, bringing its total budget to $505 million.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What does he say to the 120 people who braved freezing conditions in Palmerston North last week to protest against the health cuts, one of whom said: “They tell us this is not about cuts, but about change. Well, I beg to differ,”?

Hon TONY RYALL: I say to those good people of Palmerston North that this Government inherited a declining financial position at the MidCentral District Health Board, with the deficit expected to be well in excess of $10 million. We cannot have assured services for the people of that community when there is a financial situation like that. We are working to secure good quality front-line services for the people of MidCentral’s district.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Does he stand by his statements about hospital emergency departments, particularly North Shore Hospital, where only a few years ago people languished under florescent lights on trolleys in corridors for up to 36 hours?

Hon TONY RYALL: Yes. This morning at North Shore Hospital the Associate Minister of Health Dr Jonathan Coleman opened a new 25-bed ward. This new ward means that patients will not have to wait so long to be admitted, and is in response to the Government’s 6-hour emergency department target. Next month eight clinical nurse specialists will start at the emergency department in North Shore, working in partnership with doctors to provide faster treatment in the emergency department. This is an example of front-line services that are improving all around this nation.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How does he expect MidCentral District Health Board to do anything other than make more health cuts when Treasury forecasts health needing at least a 5 percent increase to keep up with costs, yet this year’s Budget handed MidCentral District Health Board a 2.12 percent increase?

Hon TONY RYALL: The advice that one has received from the Ministry of Health is that in order to keep up with inflation and a demographic change the health budget would have had to increase by $509 million. In fact, in this Budget the increase is $512 million. I advise the member opposite that this is the highest percentage of GDP ever invested in health by any Government in the history of this country. For that, we are getting massively improved front-line services.

10. Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Relationship to Treaty of Waitangi

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

10. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Attorney-General: How does the Government’s review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act reflect the Cabinet-agreed principles that the development of a new regime must reflect the Treaty of Waitangi, its principles, and related jurisprudence?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : The Crown’s duty of active protection of Māori property interests as guaranteed by the Treaty is reflected by the repeal of Labour’s 2004 Act, the restoration of uninvestigated customary title, which was extinguished by that Act, and the establishment of awards that will recognise the relationship of tangata whenua with the foreshore and seabed. The development of the new regime in good faith, and in consultation with the public, the Māori Party, and iwi leaders, reflects the Treaty and its principles. Finally, the restoration of that fundamental human right of access to justice, which was lost under the 2004 Act, reflects the article 3 guarantee of the rights of all citizens of this country.

Rahui Katene: What did the Minister mean when he said, in reference to customary title, “The fact that the title is different doesn’t mean it’s inferior in any way.”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Under the new regime it will be different, but I emphasise that it is not inferior; “different” does not mean “inferior”. An example would be that freehold title is able to be sold, and customary title will not be. Certainly, that is what the iwi groups that I have spoken to are very, very keen to see.

Hon Maryan Street: Now that customary title will be able to be visited either through the courts or in separate negotiations with the Government, what are the risks of destabilising existing Treaty of Waitangi settlements; in particular, how does he reconcile the new regime with section 10 of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act and the principle of full and final settlement?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The principle of full and final settlement is not affected at all. For example, if Ngāi Tahu—notwithstanding section 10 of the Act—feel that they have an issue about an aspect of the foreshore and seabed that is not covered by the Act and that they want to come and talk to the Government about, they are welcome to do so. There could well be, in the rohe on Ngāi Tahu, extant customary rights that need to be investigated.

Rahui Katene: What will be the benefits for customary title-holders in relation to non-nationalised minerals, and what minerals are included within the scope of this proposal?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Those who have a customary title will be able to own the non-nationalised minerals within their areas of recognised customary title. This applies to all minerals except gold, silver, uranium, and petroleum. Petroleum, of course, was nationalised by the first Labour Government in 1937; Labour is very good at doing that sort of thing.

Hon Tariana Turia: I seek leave to read the statement on the foreshore and seabed made by the Hon Parekura Horomia in June 2003, when he was the Minister of Māori Affairs and he said the land—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The member must resume her seat. [Interruption] There will be no interjections. Leave is sought for the member to read that statement. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I seek leave to table the review panel’s report, which was ignored by the Government.

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

Hon Tariana Turia: I seek leave of the House to table the statement that the Hon Parekura Horomia made in June 2003.

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

11. Budget 2010—Pacific Economic Development Agency Representatives

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

11. SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) to the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs: Who represented the Pacific Economic Development Agency throughout its negotiations with the Government, which resulted in it being awarded $4.8 million of taxpayer funding in Budget 2010?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs) : No money has been awarded to anyone or any organisation in Budget 2010.

Su’a William Sio: Mr Speaker—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleague, but I am just reflecting on the answer. The suggestion that no money has been allocated in Budget 2010 cannot possibly be true. The answer does not address the question, and it could not be a factual statement.

Mr SPEAKER: The question asked who represented the Pacific Economic Development Agency at negotiations “which resulted in it being awarded $4.8 million of taxpayer funding in Budget 2010”. The Minister in her answer seems to have disputed that that outfit was awarded that money. The Minister is at liberty to dispute part of a question. It is a little unusual, I accept, because one would have thought that the question had been validated, but the Minister has disputed it, and that is where the matter stands at the moment. There can be further tests by way of further supplementary questions.

Su’a William Sio: Whom—and when—did she meet from the Pacific Economic Development Agency that has led to this Government saying that $4.8 million can be awarded to that organisation?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: No money has been awarded in Budget 2010. If the member is referring to an appropriation of new money in Budget 2010, then that is a different matter.

Su’a William Sio: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Interjections will cease while a point of order is being heard.

Su’a William Sio: I seek your assistance. My question was specifically about who was involved in negotiations with this Government—

Mr SPEAKER: To assist the member, I invite him to repeat his question, because I did not clearly hear the start of it. The House will be silent while we hear the question repeated, as there is some concern over the answer given. I invite the member to repeat the question asked, without any penalty or loss of question.

Su’a William Sio: Whom did she meet from Pacific Economic Development Agency that has led to this Government announcing $4.8 million of taxpayer funding going to that organisation?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: No money has gone to that organisation at this point, and if any money passes to it, the Government will make sure that there is an appropriate purchase agreement in place that is transparent and that will achieve the objectives the Government is seeking.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question asked whom the Government had met from the Pacific Economic Development Agency that—

Mr SPEAKER: I may be able to assist the member. The problem with his colleague’s question was he did not just ask whom the Minister had met from the organisation; he referred to it resulting in certain money being awarded. [Interruption] Members will not interject while the Speaker is ruling. The Minister has disputed the statement built into the question. I cannot help that. The Minister has disputed it, and the Minister must stand on her answer. As Speaker, I cannot judge whether the Minister is correct in disputing that part of the member’s question, but if he wants a particular answer, he should not include allegations in the question. He should just ask a straight question.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not at all trifling with your response, but I put it to you that the question referred to leading to money being announced, whereas the Minister said that no money has been voted—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Awarded.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Awarded—I am sorry. The fact that the money has been announced is public information, and the fact that the Minister said that it has not been awarded is irrelevant to the fact that it has been announced.

Mr SPEAKER: I refer back, though, to my advice to the honourable member that to avoid this kind of difficulty in getting answers to questions he should keep the question absolutely to the point. That leaves the Minister no wriggle room. Where a question contains a statement of alleged fact, that enables the Minister, rightly or wrongly, to dispute it. I cannot be judging down to the finest detail the Minister disputing that part of the question. But there are further supplementary questions, and it would not be very difficult to ask a question that left no wriggle room.

Su’a William Sio: Was she present when Mr Bill English met with representatives of the Pacific Economic Development Agency prior to, and immediately after, the 2008 general election, and will she confirm that those meetings led to the agency being awarded $4.8 million of taxpayer funds by this Government?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: I say again that no money has been awarded to that organisation.

Su’a William Sio: Whom did she meet from the Pacific Economic Development Agency to discuss money?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: I have met with a number of individuals from Auckland, some of whom may or may not be associated with the Pacific Economic Development Agency. But I say again that this was an appropriation of new money in Budget 2010, and it was appropriated for economic development initiatives in Auckland.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has attempted to avoid answering the earlier question—

Mr SPEAKER: I know what the member is going to say, and I think I can assist him. This particular question relates absolutely to the primary question asked; the Minister must know whom she has met with, when it relates directly to the primary question asked. It may not be in the public interest to divulge the answer, and if the Minister says that it is not, I fully respect that. But the Minister was asked a straight question about whom she had met with from a particular organisation. That relates directly to the primary question, and I invite the Minister to answer it.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a very interesting interpretation of the question, but I think somewhat irrelevant, simply because the Minister has repeatedly said that no contract has been let. Therefore, any questions about discussions over money, as the questioner asked, are somewhat irrelevant.

Mr SPEAKER: The primary question read: “Who represented the Pacific Economic Development Agency throughout its negotiations with the Government,”. The Minister has not denied that there were any negotiations with the Government; she denied that money had been awarded. The primary question was absolutely specific; it was about who represented the Pacific Economic Development Agency. Up until the last supplementary question, the questioner had made all sorts of statements in the questions being asked. The final supplementary question asked whom the Minister had met with. It related directly to the primary question, and the House deserves an answer, unless it is not in the public interest.

12. Mining—Underground Coal Gasification Pilot Plant

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

12. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What announcements has Solid Energy made recently regarding underground coal gasification?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) : Last week Solid Energy announced its plans to commission early next year a $22 million underground coal gasification pilot plant in the Waikato. The process gasifies coal deep underground, producing a syngas that can be used in the production of electricity, and in the production of pure hydrogen to make a range of other high-value products, including methanol, synthetic transport fuel, fertilisers or waxes, plastics, and detergents. It is a very good initiative.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What statements of support has the Minister seen for the underground coal gasification project?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have seen a statement of support from the Mayor of Waikato District, Peter Harris. I have also seen general statements in support of mining in the Waikato from the new Labour energy spokesperson, Nanaia Mahuta, who said that mining continues to make an important contribution to Huntly. She also praised the significant environmental contribution made by Solid Energy by creating wetlands, and its initiatives in fencing waterways. I welcome Ms Mahuta to the energy spokesperson role and I look forward to Labour returning to its old policy of supporting the economic contribution of the mining industry to New Zealand.

ENDS

© Scoop Media