THURSDAY, 26 MARCH 2009
QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

1. Roading and Public Transport Funding—Auckland Projects

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

1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Transport: What Auckland public transport projects will be delayed as a result of the Government’s transport funding announcements last week?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) : The electrification of Auckland’s commuter rail network, which is far and away the largest public transport project in that city, remains on track for 2013. In regard to the smaller projects, I and my officials are working hard with Auckland officials to ensure that momentum is not lost on the important public transport initiatives in Auckland.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he realise that by cutting the guaranteed funding for Auckland’s public transport upgrades he has thrown into jeopardy integrated ticketing, new and upgraded train and bus stations, ferry wharf upgrades, and real-time information for buses, trains, and ferries—all of which are essential to make the network operate successfully?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I do not believe that I have placed those in jeopardy. Officials are walking through a process with the Auckland Regional Council and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. The Auckland Regional Council has a total of $800 million of its own funds committed to those projects. We look forward to working constructively with them in the coming weeks.

Dr Jackie Blue: What commitments has the Government made to Auckland public transport?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government has committed to public transport infrastructure upgrades in Auckland, including the double tracking currently under way in Auckland costing $600 million, and signal, track, and electricity upgrades through ONTRACK worth $500 million, as well as the purchase of electric rolling stock worth another $500 million. Those projects represent a very sizable commitment, as the Minister of Finance confirms, to passenger transport users in Auckland.

Keith Locke: How does the Minister answer the article in the New Zealand Herald that states that there will be delays in integrated ticketing, and how will Aucklanders who want to escape traffic gridlock and get to work quickly do so if they cannot easily transfer between buses, trains, and ferries on a single ticket, due to the Government’s half-plan that was announced for Auckland last week?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not expect they will want to ride on an integrated ticket. Integrated ticketing is currently subject to a funding decision from the New Zealand Transport Agency. The only comment I would add is that while integrated ticketing is important, some rather painfully expensive international experience shows that it needs to be done at the right time and it is important that fare structures and services are simplified before we start paying the hourly rates of the information technology guys.

Hon Darren Hughes: Does the Minister know when the successful tender for integrated ticketing for Auckland’s public transport will be announced, and when do tenders, which were called last year, lapse?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I do not know; that is subject to a decision by the New Zealand Transport Agency.

Dr Russel Norman: How will an Aucklander who wants to escape gridlock get to work when new and upgraded train and bus stations at Newmarket, New Lynn, Parnell, Morningside, and Onehunga now hang in the balance due to the Government’s half-plan for Auckland public transport that was announced last week?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is well ahead of himself. The officials of the New Zealand Transport Agency, the Ministry of Transport, the senior staff of KiwiRail, the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, and the Auckland Regional Council are all working together, pretty much as we speak, to ensure that the projects that are under way continue.

Keith Locke: Surely, the fact that the Minister is talking with these agencies does not override the fact that delays are taking place. To repeat the question of my co-leader, how will an Aucklander who wants to escape traffic gridlock, and get to work easily, be inspired to do so if there are hold-ups in the revamping of 10 ferries and the provision of better real-time information for buses, ferries, and trains, now hanging in the balance due to the Government’s half-plan for Auckland public transport that was announced last week?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The answer to that question is the same as the answer to the previous one: the officials involved are working together to ensure that there are no unnecessary delays.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister agree with former Minister of Transport the Hon Maurice Williamson, who said “... it’s also important to realise that throwing dollars at the problem of roads is not the answer. Experience in the United Kingdom, the United States and … Auckland shows us this. Building more and more roads in congested areas on many occasions results in more congestion—more traffic jams, more time and money wasted and more pollution.” If he does not agree with Mr Williamson, where is the evidence he has to show that Mr Williamson was wrong?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member does not seem to understand that there is no argument at all on this side of the House that a multimodal passenger solution for Auckland is what is required. There is a need for roads because, at the end of the day, 84 percent of New Zealanders travel to and from work each day via the road, but there is also a need for public transport, particularly in our larger cities.

Dr Russel Norman: Has the Minister not seen the numbers with regard to the ways that people travel to work, including the dramatic increase in the number of Aucklanders catching the train, which was up by 18 percent in 2008, and the number of Aucklanders catching the bus, which was up by 7 percent in 2008—proving that Aucklanders would choose to use public transport if this Government, which will become a Government of gridlock if the Minister does not take action, would allow the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to get on and build the public transport we need?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I said before, we do support passenger transport in Auckland, but we need to keep some sense of perspective. The number of passengers travelling to and from work by public transport in Auckland has been around 6 percent, and it is moving steadily towards 8 percent. Therefore, we have to still invest in other modes to get people to and from work safely.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table an article in this morning’s New Zealand Herald that shows that three short-listed tenders, prepared for more than $1 million each, are due to expire this Tuesday—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table an article out of the New Zealand Herald. Is there any objection to that? There is.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table an article from the New Zealand Herald of25 February 2009 entitled “Buses lead the way as commuters leave cars at home”.

Mr SPEAKER: I am about to seek leave for that, but I remind the Green members that the Standing Orders Committee has recommended that articles out of daily newspapers should not be tabled in the House. Having said that, leave is sought to table that article from the New Zealand Herald. Is there any objection? There is.

2. Ministers—Confidence

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

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

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes; because they are all talented and are working hard for New Zealand.

Hon Annette King: How can he have confidence in the Minister for ACC when over 400 briefing papers are currently stacked up in his office requiring attention, and is this not a sign of a Minister out of his depth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, the Prime Minister does have confidence in the Minister for ACC. He is dealing with a legacy of Labour’s overseeing the accident compensation scheme with much more focus on the politics than on the effectiveness of the scheme. The Minister for ACC now has to set about the difficult job of saving the scheme’s entitlements from that party’s mismanagement of the scheme.

Hon Annette King: How can he have confidence in the Minister for the Environment when senior executives from the Ministry for the Environment have gone to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and to his office to say that they cannot work with Dr Smith because he has not read any advice provided to him, and is this not an indication of a Minister out of control?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If there was any Minister who could be guaranteed to read every word of all advice, then it would be the Minister for the Environment. The Labour Party, of course, has nothing to do except pay attention to rumour and gossip.

Hon Annette King: Why, if the Prime Minister has confidence in the Minister for ACC, has he taken to writing answers to parliamentary question for the Minister, as was demonstrated in the answer provided to the Opposition on 19 March, which stated: “PM’s advocated answer”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Mr Speaker—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It was left over from Labour.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, that was my point, actually. Following the practice of the previous Labour Government, we take a whole-of-Government approach, although I would have to say that we have yet to develop the stern disciplinary methods used by the ninth floor previously.

Hon Annette King: Did the Prime Minister instruct the Hon Steven Joyce to give the Minister for ACC a bollocking in the parliamentary lobby recently for his poor performance in the House, or does the Minister for Communications and Information Technology see that as being part of his daily duties?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Those who are familiar with working with the Prime Minister know that he is quite capable of doing his own bollocking, in his own charming way.

Hon Annette King: Who was the Prime Minister referring to when he said there was no room for phone-throwers or temper tantrums at the top; and can he confirm his colleagues’ belief that in fact he was talking about Nick Smith?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, he was talking about the previous occupants of the ninth floor of the Beehive, and not only has he decided there is no room for them; the New Zealand public has decided there is no room for them.

3. Economy—Performance

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

3. CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on New Zealand’s economic and financial performance?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : This morning I received a report from Statistics New Zealand that the current account deficit for the year ended December 2008 has increased to over $16 billion, or 8.9 percent of GDP. The deficit has now been above 8 percent of GDP for 4 successive years. The cumulative increase in New Zealand’s net foreign liabilities during this period is in excess of $57 billion.

Chris Tremain: How does this report compare with the position 10 years ago?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Ten years ago the previous Minister of Finance, Dr Cullen, made a huge deal about how the current account deficit proved that all the economic policy for the preceding 15 years had been a failure. At that stage it was just $4 billion, or 4 percent of GDP. That was before Labour embarked on a strategy of import-led growth, which has led to a doubling of the current account deficit.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister explain why, given the growing current account deficit, the Government has cut KiwiSaver, which encourages savings, deepens capital markets, and reduces the gap in the current account, and would that not make just about as much sense as—I do not know—appointing Rodney Hide to oversee the Commerce Commission?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is committing somewhere around a billion dollars to KiwiSaver as incentives. But New Zealanders are changing their savings habits now. They are pulling back on consumption and increasing their savings in a way that is nothing to do with KiwiSaver but all to do with an adjustment that needs to occur in this economy.

Chris Tremain: What are the consequences of the deterioration in the external accounts over the past 10 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: First, there should be an adjustment so that those export sectors where New Zealand is genuinely competitive can prosper. Secondly, we need to be mindful of debt levels, and the ratings agencies are reminding us of that. The net result of this blowout in the current account deficit is that now almost one-twelfth of New Zealand’s output accrues to foreigners.

Hon David Cunliffe: Given that innovation increases productivity and reduces the current account deficit, why has the Minister cut the Fast Forward fund and the research and development tax credits; and why has the Government dismissed the findings of the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s monetary policy review, when manufacturers and exporters have been—

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Bill English.

Hon Annette King: Oh, let him finish his question.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, as a matter of fact, if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is interested, I tell her that he did not actually start to ask a question. I thought the speech had gone on long enough.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member is meant to start a question with a question word.

Mr SPEAKER: I was going to allow the Minister to answer anyhow, because the member did get on to a question eventually. But maybe we had better have a question. Could the member ask a question, please.

Hon David Cunliffe: I would be happy to rephrase the question, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: No—if the member would just ask one.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why has the Minister cut the Fast Forward fund and the research and development tax credit, and why has the Government dismissed the findings of the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s monetary policy review, when manufacturers and exporters are being killed by exchange rates that bounce around like yo-yos?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The reason the Government has got rid of the Fast Forward fund is that the fund amounted to the Government borrowing money to put into the fund, to go and invest in the Government bonds that it had borrowed in the first place. It was a nonsensical money-go-round of $700 million, set up simply for branding purposes in election year.

John Boscawen: What plans does he have to act on the advice of the Inland Revenue Department, which in its briefing to him as incoming Minister reaffirmed that a broad-based and lower rate tax system, as provided for in National and ACT’s confidence and supply agreement, is “fundamentally sound”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has acted on those principles, probably prior to the advice from the Inland Revenue Department. Tax cuts will come into effect on 1 April, and they will move us further in the direction of a broad-based low-rate system. We announced a small to medium sized enterprise package just a few weeks ago, which has made a number of changes again, in line with the principle of a broad-based, low-rate system. Over the next 4 or 5 years, when revenue is going to be very tight, it is important—in fact, it is vital—that our tax system is as efficient as possible.

4. Primary Health Services—Access

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

4. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: Is access to primary health services a priority for him as Minister; if so, why was it not listed as such in his letter of expectations?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) : Yes, access to primary health care services is important. It is clear from the general election that the public expects better services from our public hospitals. We have inherited a lot of pressing problems in that area, and that is why the Government has elevated immediate emphasis on improving hospital services, reducing waiting lists, and improving workforce retention. Having said that, I made it clear in my letter of expectations that commitment to the Primary Health Care Strategy is bipartisan and remains important, and if the member had read past the third paragraph of my letter, she would have seen that.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What part of “Better, sooner, more convenient care” did a young Nelson woman with autism receive when she was locked in a police cell last week, and is that what we can expect to see more of under a Minister of Health whose priority is hospital-based services?

Hon TONY RYALL: That young woman did not receive acceptable service from the New Zealand health service.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What were the priorities set out in the Minister’s letter of expectations?

Hon TONY RYALL: For many New Zealanders, confidence in the New Zealand public health system over recent years has been damaged because of excessive waiting-times and delays. The new Government has elevated dealing with this crisis. The new Government expects district health boards to improve elective surgery volumes, to improve emergency department waiting-times, and to increase cancer treatment waiting-times. We also expect them to help us deal with the workforce crisis by improving staff retention and fostering clinical leadership.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Was a spell in a police cell what he had in mind when he said “We want to streamline service delivery for people with disabilities.”; if not, what is he going to do for that young woman?

Hon TONY RYALL: Both the Prime Minister and I have said that that level of service was unacceptable. The Ministry of Health is working with that district health board to ensure that the situation does not happen again.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Will this Minister be answering any primary health questions this term, including the one I asked him yesterday about cash-strapped patients putting off having cancer check-ups by their general practitioner, or is he still happy to let the market decide general practice fees?

Hon TONY RYALL: It does concern me that people who may have skin cancer would not go to their general practitioner clinic to have it checked. I expect the district health boards to work with their primary health organisations to address this issue. I can advise the member that general practitioner subsidies will increase this year by more than they did last year, under her Government.

5. Self-defence Legislation—Need for Review

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

5. DAVID GARRETT (ACT) to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree that the law on self-defence needs thorough review, following the throwing out of the case against Virender Singh and ongoing violence in our community, particularly against small-shop owners?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : Not quite yet. I recognise that there is considerable public anxiety about whether Mr Singh should have been charged in the first place. Although I do not want to comment on the specifics of the case, I have asked officials for advice on how section 48 of the Crimes Act is applied, both in terms of how police exercise their discretion to charge, and how broadly the courts have dealt with such issues.

David Garrett: Does the Minister agree that as a matter of principle a person’s home is his or her castle and that someone invading it does so at his or her peril; if not, why not?

Hon SIMON POWER: Section 48 of the Crimes Act, as the member will know states: “Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use”. Also, section 55 of the Crimes Act permits “such force as is necessary to prevent the forcible breaking and entering” of a person’s home. It is those matters and the application of them that I have asked my officials to look at.

Hon Jim Anderton: What sentence would be imposed on a hypothetical shop keeper who was successfully prosecuted for defending himself if he had twice previously been robbed and had defended himself and if the Government’s “three strikes and you’re out” bill, promoted by the member who asked the primary question, was operating; and is it possible that a hypothetical person who overreacted to being repeatedly robbed could get a harsher sentence under that proposed law than the robber himself?

Hon SIMON POWER: The member will have to wait to see whether that bill becomes law.

6. Public Safety—Government Focus

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

6. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her comment that “the focus of this Government is on public safety.”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) : Yes.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How does her promise to New Zealanders that the Government focus is on public safety have any credibility, when Lower Hutt police admitted leaving in the hands of Mongrel Mob members a sensitive police manual that contained confidential call signs, the names and ranks of police officers, and details of a woman who was later forced to flee her home?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The New Zealand Police has acknowledged that that action was completely unacceptable. The police have changed their procedures accordingly. I remind that member that the only people cheering his constant attacks on the police are criminals.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. I asked a specific question, which was how her promise can have any credibility when this example of failure has happened. She never went anywhere near addressing the credibility of her statement.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister replied that the situation that the member had described was totally unacceptable to the Government. So she was acknowledging that it was totally unacceptable. I invite the member to ask further supplementary questions.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How does her promise to New Zealanders that the Government’s focus is on public safety have any credibility, when the police left a digital camera containing crime scene images at a crime scene following a drug raid in Lower Hutt, and among those images were photos of dead and decaying bodies and domestic violence victims?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Again, that was a completely unacceptable situation, and the police have changed their procedures. They are now making sure that all photographs are deleted from digital cameras, so that that situation does not happen again. The Commissioner of Police is taking this very seriously, as am I.

Melissa Lee: What is the Government doing to demonstrate its commitment to public safety?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: This Government is committed to significant increases in front-line police numbers as promised before the election. Those increases are well on the way to being implemented under this Government.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How does the Minister’s promise to New Zealanders that the Government’s focus is on public safety have any credibility, when an alleged rapist was initially bailed to a location just 300 metres from the alleged 15-year-old victim, following police failure to properly check the appropriateness of the bail address, and, further, a failure to convey that information to the judge; and why did it take a Dominion Post story and a question from the Opposition to generate any sort of action from that Minister?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No action was taken as a result of the letter from the Opposition. Rather, the police have said that the incident is deeply regrettable. I would like to read to the member a comment that was sent to me—and I read it with permission—by the mother of the complainant: “I have absolutely no desire to criticise our police, who all in all do a fantastic job, often in difficult circumstances, and acted quickly and effectively to remedy the problem when they realised a mistake had been made.” I suggest to that member of the House that he take a little bit from that lady and try to accept that the police do the very best job they can.

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Clayton Cosgrove.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Always attacking the police.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: No, I back the victims. When is the Minister herself going to do something practical to deal with failures like these, which discredit every day the good work of our police, rather than simply having a do-nothing attitude and responding with “I will have a chat with the commissioner.”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have made sure that the commissioner has changed policies and procedures to get things fixed.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Oh, you directed him?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes, actually. That is significantly more than what that member has ever done. The commissioner has taken action accordingly.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You directed the commissioner?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, no, the commissioner has made sure that things have been done, because I have spoken to him about it.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have a difficulty. In response to my first interjection, which asked whether the Minister had directed the commissioner, she answered—

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Point of order—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Excuse me, I am—

Mr SPEAKER: I am listening to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. The Minister must resume her seat, but I do want to hear a point of order.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In response to my interjection in the middle of that question, when I asked whether the Minister had directed the commissioner, or words to that effect—and if one does not believe me, one can look at the Hansard—the response, I believe, was “Yes”. Then, towards the end of that question, when I interjected—

Mr SPEAKER: Could the member please make clear the issue of order he is seeking remedy for.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I am, if I could just finish the sentence—

Mr SPEAKER: I hear no issue of order.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: In response to a second interjection, the Minister contradicted herself and said she—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will take his seat. He knows that is not a point of order. It has nothing to do with the order of the House. If he interjects he can expect to get all sorts of responses. That is not a point of order; let us be very clear about that.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. If the Minister wants to raise a point of order, I will hear it.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I heard the member saying: “Did you speak to the commissioner?”—

Mr SPEAKER: Members must not use the point of order process for matters that have nothing to do with the procedures of this House. If the Hon Clayton Cosgrove wishes to raise another point of order, I will listen to him, but I have ruled on the matter and I am very clear on it.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice as to what the procedure is if a Minister or a member, in the course of answering a question, gives a contradictory answer and therefore, inadvertently or deliberately, misleads the House. I seek your advice.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not to need to hear any more on this. The Hon Clayton Cosgrove has been a member of this Parliament for a long time. He knows that the point of order process is not how that matter is dealt with. There are other proper procedures for dealing with it. If he is concerned that a member has deliberately misled the House, there are proper procedures for dealing with that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think there was any suggestion from Mr Cosgrove that the Minister had deliberately misled the House. I think the problem was, almost certainly, that she did so inadvertently. It was my experience that when Ministers did that it invited disorder, and sometimes inviting people to clarify their answers is a good way of stopping that from happening.

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that there is no such procedure for that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Speakers have done that for years.

Mr SPEAKER: I suggest the member reads the Standing Orders.

7. Schools—Wellington

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

7. KATRINA SHANKS (National) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made about schooling provision in the Wellington area?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) : Last week I announced that a new primary school will be built in Churton Park in Wellington at the Amesbury Drive site. The population growth in Churton Park has caused school rolls in the area to swell, and projections show that there will be 600 additional primary-age student places by 2021. The new Churton Park school is one of 11 schools to be built over the next 3 years, six of which have been brought forward by this Government as part of our fast tracking of school building projects.

Katrina Shanks: Did she consider any other options for schooling provision in Churton Park?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I did consider whether the current Churton Park School should be relocated to this new site in order to create a single primary school for the whole Churton Park area. This proposal would have created a very large primary school with a roll of more than a thousand students, and I believe that the interests of this community are better served by having two primary schools.

Hon Chris Carter: How do the educational gains of using recycled property money for pet projects compare with the educational loss of the freezing or canning of a huge number of literacy, truancy, and teacher professional development initiatives that she has carried out since gaining office?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I know that the former Labour Minister of Education, Steve Maharey, stated in July 2007, that the Labour—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Just answer the question.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The member should be patient; I am getting there. The member should just listen for another couple of words. He said “The Labour-led Government has prioritised funding to build a new full primary school … in Churton Park.” Contrary to those sorts of expectations, no prioritisation of those funds ever occurred under the previous Government. I am advised now that this new school will have to be funded from the Government’s $500 million commitment to school property over the next 3 years. It was all words from that previous Government, and no deeds.

Hon Chris Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do accept that my question was quite long—we all know in this House that Mrs Tolley’s attention span is not long—but she did nothing to address—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will not use the point of order procedure in that way. The member is concerned about the answer to his question, but when he puts into a question an accusation that a Minister was playing political games, he will not get a very straight answer.

Hon Chris Carter: A further point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I am still on my feet. I will sit down now, if the member wants to make a further point of order.

Hon Chris Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about literacy, numeracy, and professional development programmes that are being—

Mr SPEAKER: I just wish the Hon Chris Carter would actually reflect on the questions as he is asking them. The way he started the question made it very clear it was not a particularly serious, straight question, because he built the issue of playing political games into his question. A member cannot expect a Minister to give a clear answer when that is built into the question. I have ruled on the matter. I have warned the honourable member. We will go to the next question.

Hon Chris Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take objection. You have just said that my question was not a serious question. My question was about cuts to existing programmes in literacy, numeracy, and truancy. They are very serious issues, it was a serious question, and the Minister did not address it.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. If he had asked that question straight, he would have received a straight answer. I just wish the member would think about the questions he asks before he wastes the time of the House on such points of order.

Hon Chris Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was exactly—

Mr SPEAKER: I have not called the member.

Hon Chris Carter: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I warn the honourable member that I view wasting the time of the House on spurious points of order very seriously. I warn the member of that. To me, that is one of the most serious offences, because this Parliament, funded by taxpayers, is a place where Ministers are held to account. That is an important process, and I warn the member that I will not accept spurious points of order. If the member checks his Hansard, and I invite him to do so, he will see what he actually asked the Minister—and I guarantee the member I am not wrong.

Hon Chris Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would therefore like to have a commitment from you that if the Hansard reveals that that is exactly the question I asked, then you will apologise to me.

Mr SPEAKER: I will indeed. If the Hansard reveals that, I will apologise to the member in this House.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a different point of order. I seek your clarification about whether rules about the length of questions and answers will be even-handed between the two. The reason I am asking this now—and it is relevant to this situation—is that you indicated that a supplementary question I asked earlier today in question No. 3 was too long, and I stopped. It is my judgment—and I stand to be corrected by the Hansard—that it was considerably shorter than the answer the Minister gave to that question.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member actually checks back on his Hansard, he will find that the question that he asked was not a question. He started the question with “Given”. If he checks his Hansard, he will find that I am absolutely correct. That is what led to the disorder in the House and led to the difficulty on his question. In terms of the general principle, answers will inevitably be a little longer than questions are, because questions ask for information and in order to allow information to be given answers will take a little longer. I have been concerned about the excessive length of some answers, and I felt that Ministers were improving somewhat on not taking too long to answer questions. But if the member checks back on his Hansard, he will find that his supplementary question that led to difficulty did not, in fact, start as a question.

Charles Chauvel: Can the Minister assure the House that the Churton Park Community Association and other local groups will be fully consulted by her ministry with regard to the construction of the new school in Amesbury Drive, as well as any consequential changes that are required to the existing school on Churton Drive, further to my requests to her in letters dated 9 December 2008 and 17 February 2009?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes, I can assure that member that a prescribed process of consultation is now under way with the community. That is part of what one has to do to establish a new school. As he will see from the correspondence that he has received from me, I am happy to keep him informed.

Charles Chauvel: I seek leave to table my letters to the Minister that sought assurances as to consultation, dated 9 December 2008 and 17 February 2009.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is—[Interruption] Order! This is a point of order. Leave is sought to table those letters. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

* Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

8. Roading—Alternatives

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

8. Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: Does he support measures that are alternatives to roading?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) : Yes, I support transport infrastructure investments that make at least some sort of economic sense—which I appreciate might be too narrow a range of possibilities for the member opposite.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I saw you thinking slightly there, and I think I know what you were thinking. The question was actually very simple and straightforward, and we got a slightly spinnyanswer back. It was a political whack, and you are taking rather a hard line on political whacks where there is not an invitation for one in the first place. I totally agree that when a member leads with a political nose, he or she can expect one to come straight back. In this case, the question did not seek that kind of response.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the Minister to offer the House an answer to the question that the member asked.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I said, I support transport infrastructure investments that make at least some sort of economic sense.

Hon Darren Hughes: Did the Minister consult John Key when he cut 90 percent out of projected spending on coastal shipping recently, given that Mr Key had said that an integrated structure for moving freight around the country, consisting of roading and rail, as well as coastal shipping, was something he supported; if so, how does he reconcile that broken promise?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There were a number of questions there. The Government policy statement was consulted on with Cabinet.

Todd McClay: Who has been the most critical of last week’s transport announcements?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have seen numerous reports from one individual last week, whose criticisms could be summed up as saying variously that our announcements were too little, then too much, too little again, then too much again, too early, then too little, then too much, and then too late. The Hon Darren Hughes seems to be of the view that a new Government should be bound to continue with all the policies of the previous Government, which was thrown out of office.

Hon Darren Hughes: Does the Minister agree that as a matter of principle it would be unacceptable for a public transport provider to be chosen as the provider of integrated ticketing in Auckland, given that such a contract could allow the—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I say to members that I was finding it quite difficult to hear the member asking the question. I ask for a little more reasonableness on interjections, please. I invite the member to start again.

Hon Darren Hughes: Does the Minister agree that as a matter of principle it would be unacceptable for a public transport provider to be chosen as the provider of integrated ticketing in Auckland, given that such a contract could allow the provider access to commercial information properly belonging to commercial competitors?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Integrated ticketing is currently subject to a tender and funding decision from the New Zealand Transport Agency. I do not think it would be appropriate for me, as Minister, to comment further.

Hon Darren Hughes: What issues were raised with the Minister on the two occasions he met with Infratil / New Zealand Bus since taking office, and while it was tendering for the Auckland contract, in relation to integrated ticketing?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The representatives of New Zealand Bus, and a number of other bus companies I have spoken to, have raised a number of issues around the operation of the public transport system.

9. Resource Management Act—Aquaculture

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

9. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Minister for the Environment: Is he satisfied with the way aquaculture is managed under the Resource Management Act; if not, what changes is the Government proposing?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) : No; this has been an area of huge lost opportunities since the ill-conceived moratorium in 2000 and the subsequent botched legislation that has frozen the growth of the aquaculture industry. The Government is proposing significant changes to the Resource Management Act so we can put this industry back on a growth path.

Hon Tau Henare: Is the Minister aware of the opportunities in Northland for finfish and oyster farming; if so, what is the Government doing to assist?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes; I believe there are real opportunities in Northland, and these have been strongly advocated by Māori, Aquaculture New Zealand, and the Minister of Fisheries, Phil Heatley. Today I jointly announced with the Minister of Fisheries a Government-funded programme to explore the feasibility of 19 possible aquaculture management areas in Northland.

Hon Tau Henare: What further reforms is the Government advancing to assist the development of aquaculture?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government has commissioned a major piece of work with Aquaculture New Zealand on further Resource Management Act reforms. These will be included as one of the important and first work streams as part of phase two of the Government’s Resource Management Act reform programme.

10. NZAID—Structural Changes and Focus

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

10. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Has he had discussions with other international development donors about his planned structural changes to NZAID and his plans to switch its focus from poverty elimination to economic growth?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs) : Yes.

Phil Twyford: When he met Mr EckhardDeutscher of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee last month, did he brief Mr Deutscher, one of the world’s leading aid officials, on his plans for NZAID?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: In the course of that meeting I would have generally discussed a number of matters but I cannot recall specifically briefing him on any detail of the review that is under way. The response that I gave to the primary question was motivated by the fact that I have, in the course of meetings with Ministers in major donor nations—such as Australia, the UK, France, amongst others—outlined the process by which the Government is engaged in a refocusing of New Zealand’s overseas development aid approach in its efforts to improve efficiency. I have found the responses to the Government’s plans most encouraging.

John Hayes: Why has the Minister asked for a review of NZAID?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Prior to the 2008 election the National Party expressed a number of concerns about the operation of NZAID, especially in the light of two highly critical reports by the Auditor-General. As a result, a commitment was made in the election policy that and I quote: “A National Government will review the operation of agencies that deliver aid, to ensure that aid expenditure is effective and efficiently delivered.” It is my recollection that rather more people voted for the National Party and that policy than for the proponents of the policies that we criticised. The National Government is now keeping faith with the voters by conducting the review it promised.

Phil Twyford: Can the Minister explain why Mr Deutscher reported to other OECD nations, after meeting Mr McCully last month, that the Minister told him the Government intended to pursue a stable, bipartisan approach to foreign affairs, including development cooperation, that buildt on continuity and should not lead to major changes, when the reality is he is looking at entirely changing the structure and policy of NZAID?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Of course, I have no ministerial responsibility for a report that an OECD official might have filed, and I am not going to comment in the Chamber on its accuracy. I will say to the member that this Government, unlike its predecessor, is intent on doing, after the election, precisely what it promised in its election policies before the election.

Phil Twyford: Is the reason the Minister failed to properly brief Mr Deutscher on his plans for NZAID that his plans fly in the face of international best practice, contradict the last two reviews of our aid programme by the OECD, and would put New Zealand out of step with most other Western nations?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I have made it very clear to the member that the reason the Government has embarked on this review is that before the election the National Party stated, as a matter of policy, that a review would be conducted. It does not matter to me what any international organisation might say or what reports it might write. If the National Party has made a commitment in its election policy to conduct a review, then the Government will conduct a review. The member, like everyone else, should be patient and find out the results of that review, in due course.

Phil Twyford: I seek leave to table a report from the Chairman of the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD to other countries of the OECD, dated 5 March, in which he reports on his meeting with the Minister.

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.

11. Fisheries Sector—Enhancement

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

11. COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Fisheries: What reports has he received regarding the enhancement of the fisheries sector to boost its economic potential?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) : I have recently received an independent review by PricewaterhouseCoopers entitled Fisheries 2030—Vision, result areas and action plan. The next steps in this process will see the Ministry of Fisheries working with stakeholders to consider the best suggestions from the report, and then we will action those ideas.

Colin King: Are any general outcomes expected from this consultation?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Of course, specifics have to flow from the consultation, but I hope that we will see a more coordinated and fruitful approach by all stakeholders—customary, recreational, commercial, aquacultural, and environmental non-governmental organisations. This is about maximising the economic potential. For example, the National Government is committed to ensuring that our aquaculture industry gets going, instead of languishing under the current law. We expect this approach to support that.

12. Foreshore and Seabed Act—Review

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

12. Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: What advice, if any, has he received from his officials at Te PuniKōkiri on comments made by the Hon Pita Sharples, Co-leader of the Māori Party, that if the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act found no changes were needed “we’ll probably sack them and put another group in”; and did such advice go to the issue of whether the co-leader of a political party has authority to sack the review board?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs) :Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. None, as I have said before in the House. Te PuniKōkiri did not provide me with any advice on what should be done if the review panel recommended that no changes were needed.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Does the Minister accept in his ministerial role that the only people who could possibly sack a review board were Ministers; if so, does he accept that when he made that statement, he must have said it in his ministerial role, and that if he was not acting in his ministerial role, he was simply uttering empty words with no meaning?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I accept that if anyone was to sack a panel, it would be the Minister. But it was said as a joke, and everybody there laughed. I am amazed that the member cannot see the humour in it.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: What involvement has the Minister had in the Foreshore and Seabed Act review, and how has he enjoyed working with the Attorney-General?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following on from the previous answer, I take it that the last part of that question was a joke.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: My answer is not a joke. As Minister I have had input into the development of the terms of reference of the review, and into the selection of the review panel, and my ministry is involved in providing support for the panel’s secretariat. I look forward to working with my ministerial colleagues to respond to the report of the independent review panel in due course. It is my hope that, following the review, iwi and hapū mana whenua of the foreshore and seabed will be appropriately recognised.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: In his close and intimate working relationship with the Attorney-General, has he raised the question of maintaining statutory protection of public rights of access and navigation, and statutory protection of the codification of common law rules around customary rights?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: In all my dealings with, and conversations about, the Act, the protection of public access to the foreshore and seabed has been paramount.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. Will the Minister support the review panel’s report?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I support the process established for the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act, and the independent panel that has been appointed to conduct the review. The independent panel will consult widely with Māori as part of its review process. The findings and the recommendations of the review will be fully considered by the Government.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Has the Minister received an assurance from the Attorney-General that the Government will support the outcome of the review, whatever it may be, just as he has stated that he will support the outcome of the review, whatever it may be?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I repeat what I said. When the review is over, the Government will consider its findings. Kia ora.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Has the Minister been advised of any statements made by members of Parliament about what should happen if the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act finds that the Act should be repealed?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I have received advice that the Green Party has called the review “a step in the right direction as hopefully it will come to the sensible conclusion that this Act needs to be repealed and Maori access to the courts restored”. Its Māori affairs spokesperson, MetiriaTurei, has gone further in calling for the National Government to respect its findings.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: In the light of that last answer, is the Minister aware that the Act provides for access to the courts in terms of both territorial customary rights and specific usage rights?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I am aware of that. But territorial customary rights are nothing compared with the customary rights that had been handed down generation after generation after generation that that member cut off.

QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS

1. Accident Compensation Corporation—2007/08 Financial Review

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

1. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: Did he request that John Judge appear at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the 2007/08 ACC financial review; if so, when?

DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) : If the member is referring to the select committee meeting of 12 March, then the answer is no.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Was he under the impression that Mr Judge had been properly appointed at the time he was asked to go to the committee?

DAVID BENNETT: I was aware that there was a reconfiguration of the board of the Accident Compensation Corporation, and that member will be pleased to note that Mr Judge will be appearing before the committee next week.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question. It went to whether Mr Judge had been properly appointed, not whether there had been a reconfiguration.

Mr SPEAKER: I was troubled by the member’s question, because it is not a matter of the process of the select committee; the chair of the select committee has no responsibility for whether a chair is properly appointed, and that is why I had difficulty with the member’s question. The chair of the committee responded to the question. I believe that that was reasonable.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point, which I think you probably understand and I think the member understands, is that subsequently it became clear that the person had not been properly appointed. The point that we are trying to get to is when that member became aware of the fact that the chair was, in fact, Ross Wilson and not John Judge at the time the invitation—

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

Mr SPEAKER: That should not have been part of the point of order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That was my point—it is not a point of order. It is irrelevant, because in Parliament the chair of a select committee is responsible for the procedure for matters before a select committee, not for what he or she knew about the Government’s plans.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a very good point. I will not hear—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Supplementary—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member has used his supplementary questions on question No. 1.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would remind you of the fact that Speakers’ rulings do indicate a flexibility on this, and, of course, it is at your discretion.

Mr SPEAKER: I will just advise the honourable member that the reason why I did not allow a further supplementary question was that the first one was very marginal in terms of being allowed, because, as the Hon Gerry Brownlee pointed out, it is not a matter of responsibility for the chair of the committee.

2. Accident Compensation Corporation—2007-08 Financial Review

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

2. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: When and how did he become aware that John Judge was unable to appear at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the 2007-08 ACC financial review?

DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) : I have not asked Mr Judge to appear, but he will be appearing next week, for that member’s information.

Mr SPEAKER: The member was asked when he became aware that John Judge was unable to appear.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to think about that, because that assumes that the member has made a request for Mr Judge to appear. The member has made it very clear that he has not asked him to appear. So why would he, in any circumstances in his role as chair, from that point be worried about whether Mr Judge was available? He did not ask him.

Hon Trevor Mallard: That might be fine, other than the fact that the Minister for ACC told reporters that—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Points of order must relate to procedures and order. The interesting issue that has been raised by the Hon Gerry Brownlee is whether the chair of the board’s coming to such a meeting is something that is done specifically at the invitation of the chair of the committee, or whether it is a normal process that is followed for the chair of the board to come to a meeting. It may be that the chair of the committee would be advised whether that normal process was not being followed in this case. I simply invite the member to give a further answer, if he can, to the primary question from the Hon Trevor Mallard as to when he became aware that the chair of the board would not be attending the meeting.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are putting the chairman of the select committee in a very difficult position. The Government made the decision early in the week to remove the chair of the Accident Compensation Corporation board from the board. At that point it would have been abundantly clear that the chair of the board was not attending the meeting. The question is whether Mr Judge was invited. The member—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is digressing as far as the Hon Trevor Mallard did.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No—

Mr SPEAKER: If that is the case, then the member can easily say that he became aware of that when the Government made its announcement. It is not very difficult.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. On that last point, I think one should be mindful, of course, that it all depends on who was actually the chair at the time—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: —but that is not the point I am trying to make. I think you actually raised by inference a very important issue, which I think you should think about as the defender of this House and of the proceedings of Parliament. When a State-owned enterprise or a major Government entity is called to appear before a select committee, I believe that it should be the assumption that the chair of that organisation will attend unless the committee has been notified for good reason why the chair cannot attend. Otherwise, I believe that such people would be treating the select committees of this Parliament with some degree of contempt.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need to hear more on the general issue. The member has raised, I think, an interesting general point of order that maybe the Business Committee or the Standing Orders Committee of the House could reflect on. I do not think that it is for my consideration right now, but the member has raised what is certainly a genuine point of order. I invite the honourable member to reply.

DAVID BENNETT: I did not ask Mr Judge to appear; therefore, I was unable to know when he was able to appear—as Mr Brownlee pointed out in his point of order on that question, just before.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did, on the night before the meeting, Mr Bennett become aware that Mr Judge was cycling in the South Island; if so, did he become aware of that from the Minister?

DAVID BENNETT: I am not aware of what Mr Judge was up to, at that time. But we had the Minister appear before the committee, and I should imagine that Labour members would have been very happy to have the Minister come and answer the questions about the accident compensation portfolio.

ENDS

© Scoop Media