(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)
TUESDAY, 29 APRIL 2003
Questions for Oral Answer
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS:
1. Electricity—Supply
2. Economy—Reserve Bank Statement
3. Economy—Reserve Bank Statement
4. Electricity—Dobson Hydro Scheme
5. Electricity—Savings
6. Social Policy—Development
7. Police—Car Crash Inquiries
8. Genetic Engineering—Risk to GDP
9. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome—District Health Boards
10. Schools—Staffing Review Group
11. Domain Names—The New Zealand Way Ltd
12. Electricity—Disruption of Supply
QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS:
1. Electricity—Inquiry into Industry
Questions to Ministers
Questions for Oral Answer
Electricity—Supply
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister of Finance: What actions has the Government taken as a
result of the 2000 Inquiry into the Electricity Industry, the 2001 electricity crisis, and the electricity governance
establishment project, and will these actions reduce what he described as “economic and social disruption” facing New
Zealand this winter?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): We passed the Electricity Industry Reform Act and the electricity amendment
legislation, which were both opposed by National. The Government announced a series of moves yesterday to reduce the
probability of disruption, should a dry winter eventuate.
Hon Bill English: After passing two Acts of Parliament, conducting an inquiry into the electricity industry in June
2000, publishing the first policy statement by the Government as to the further development of New Zealand’s electricity
industry—which includes the management of electricity supply risk—and then publishing a revised policy statement on
exactly the same issue in February 2002, why is it that nothing has happened at all to reduce the impact of a dry year
on New Zealand’s electricity supply?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Despite the fact that Parliament is sovereign, neither statute nor policy statement can make it
rain in the lakes, nor fill up Maui with the amount of gas that was previously assumed to be recoverable. There are, of
course, questions lying around whether the market is the best means of ensuring security of supply. I welcome the
suggestion from the Opposition about reducing the amount of market influence in the electricity area.
Mark Peck: Would the Minister care to share with the House exactly what is the effect of the legislation?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Apparently it is to make the Opposition laugh, but, in fact, it picked up the key recommendation
of the inquiry by providing for industry self-regulation. However, the Minister of Energy was far-sighted enough to
provide for a Crown governance board should the industry model fail. It looks like we may now have to use that option,
which was also opposed by National and ACT.
Peter Brown: Does the Minister concur that to address the electricity problems in the short term there needs to be
appropriate regulation coupled with financial incentive to save power, and that in the longer term there needs to be
incentive and less bureaucracy to improve and enlarge supply capacity?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I agree, on the second point, that there is not enough bureaucracy and rather too much market in
terms of long-term supply considerations. [Interruption] The Opposition cannot have it both ways. It cannot say that the
market works perfectly but there is a problem, then object to any suggestions of changing the market. Certainly it is
very important for reductions in demand over the coming period to first look at issues like the appropriate levels of
coal supply for the Huntly plant.
Hon Richard Prebble: Will the Minister admit that any power cuts and economic and social disruption caused by
electricity shortage are not the result of market failure but of Government failure, in that the Government owns 70
percent of the generating capacity in New Zealand and has elected to take scarcity profits over building new generating
capacity, that it owns 100 percent of the national grid and has elected to take profits rather than increasing the
grid’s capacity, that it is the Government’s own Department of Conservation that is refusing to allow the Dobson hydro
to go ahead, and that it is this Government that has decided to make New Zealand the only country in the Southern
Hemisphere to ratify Kyoto?
Mr SPEAKER: The member knows full well he made a statement at the end, not asked a question. The aspects of the question
that were addressed, the Minister can reply to.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I just reply to the last part. As a professional historian by training, for A to cause B, A has
to come first. As the Kyoto Protocol does not come into force until 2008, it is hard to see how it causes a power crisis
in 2003.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister believe that the New Zealand economy has given Max Bradford’s market reforms a
long-enough trial, and does he agree—
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That comment is totally out of line. The current situation we face
in the electricity industry is entirely of this Government’s making—
Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. That is a political point. The member’s question, so far, is perfectly in
order. The member will start again.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister believe that the New Zealand economy has given Max Bradford’s market reforms a
long-enough trial—
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is no such thing as Max Bradford’s market reforms. There are
simply the reforms—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: We have had a 2 weeks’ break, and we are having a little bit of fun. That is where it ends. The member, so
far, has not come to any point or order. I want to know what it is.
Gerry Brownlee: If you refer to Standing Order 372(2) you will find that one cannot make inferences, epithets, or
assumptions when asking a question. That is exactly what this member has done. What we have at the moment is “Pete
Hodgson’s power system”, which has fallen apart.
Mr SPEAKER: If the member rewords her question “reforms introduced by the Hon Max Bradford”, it will be in perfectly
good order.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your advice. Does the Minister believe that the New Zealand economy has
given the market reforms introduced by Max Bradford a long-enough trial, and does he agree that the least economic cost
and social disruption in future will come from accelerating permanent improvement in energy efficiency, while we develop
cost-effective renewable supply options?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Clearly, demand management over both the short and long term is important in the electricity
market, but it has to be said there are elements that can be used to influence demand factors. If one is going to give
away those elements then it is much harder to limit demand than through other mechanisms. But there are some interesting
questions around whether the market by itself will develop a sufficient margin of security of supply, given New
Zealand’s peculiar situation of dependence on hydro power and the nature of its hydrology.
Hon Peter Dunne: Is the Minister concerned that Transpower is apparently unwilling to commit the funding necessary to
upgrade the distribution capacity of the national grid, because it requires the approval of every local authority over
whose area its wires might pass, and has no confidence that that will be forthcoming; if so, what action is he prepared
to take in respect of that matter?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That issue has certainly been raised, but it is not clear that it is true. We are looking at
that, but there are other considerations in terms of Transpower’s own commercial imperatives. One of the changes that
are a result of Mr Hodgson’s legislation is that once the electricity governance board is in place it may be a great
deal easier to deal with that particular matter.
Hon Bill English: Given that the Government has itself known about the effects on New Zealand households and businesses
of the 2001 electricity crisis, can the Minister tell us exactly what steps his Government has taken since that crisis
to reduce the impact of a dry year this year?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There was no expectation of a dry year as early as 2003. The member should also be aware that the
Maui Gas redetermination has a big impact on the amount of gas that is to be taken out of Maui this year. That was not
expected.
Questions for Oral Answer
Economy—Reserve Bank Statement
2. DAVID CUNLIFFE (NZ Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received regarding the response
to the recent announcement by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Business New Zealand described it as prudent, the Council of Trade Unions
said that it was a step in the right direction, WestpacTrust said that a stitch in time saves nine and compared it to
the more reactive responses seen in some earlier cycles, and the Opposition spokesperson said he had not expected the
bank to move at that time, which indicated that he would not have done so had he stayed being the Reserve Bank Governor.
David Cunliffe: What moves has the Government made to allow the conduct of monetary policy to be more accommodating of
growth?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There were three changes to the monetary policy framework—those in the policy targets agreement
requiring the bank to avoid unnecessary economic instability, requiring the bank to take a medium-term focus rather than
be distracted by temporary fluctuations, and adjusting the inflation band to 1 to 3 percent. Those are all well
supported by the business sector in New Zealand, and by informed commentators and financial analysts overseas.
Dr Don Brash: Given that one of his express aims in changing the policy targets agreement with the Reserve Bank Governor
in both 1999 and last year was to “minimise excessive appreciation of the New Zealand dollar’’, how does the Minister
reconcile his claim that the changes have been successful with the fact that the New Zealand dollar has appreciated
faster during the last year than at any other time since the currency was floated in March 1985?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The primary factor is that we have enjoyed the highest growth rate in the OECD, which has
attracted money into New Zealand.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister received any reports of the enormous cost to New Zealand’s economy over the last
7 years of the Reserve Bank Governor having previously failed to take anything other than a blind ideological approach
to this issue, at a great cost to the New Zealand borrower?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I saw many comments, in particular last Thursday, about a lack of proactive responses in earlier
periods, and therefore a tendency to both ratchet up too early on the upside and ratchet down too slowly on the downside
of the economy, and welcoming a more proactive approach by the new management of the Reserve Bank.
Questions for Oral Answer
Economy—Reserve Bank Statement
3. Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank Governor Alan
Bollard’s statement, when announcing the reduction in the official cash rate from 5.75 percent to 5.5 percent, that
“available data suggest that growth in the New Zealand economy is slowing”; if so, will the cut in interest rates be
accompanied by a prosperity-boosting tax cut?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Yes and no.
Hon Richard Prebble: Given the Minister’s own statements of concern that economic growth will be affected by the energy
crisis and the severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic, how does he justify overtaxing the country in order to fund
his superannuation scheme and get a surplus, when, if he balanced the Budget, there would be enough money for a $50 per
week, per full-time taxpayer tax cut, and would not such a tax cut boost the economy?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Only a very silly Minister of Finance would try to solve a cyclical downturn problem by a
structural change in the Government accounts.
Clayton Cosgrove: Why will the Government not spend the Budget surpluses now?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Because unlike some others, we are governing for the long term and governing for all New
Zealanders, not just for the rich. Before we spend the surpluses, which are not cash surpluses but surpluses on an
operating balance on an accruals basis, we need to know what proportion of them is structural and what proportion is
cyclical.
Dr Don Brash: Given the likelihood of a sharp slow-down in the economy over the next year or so, why does the Government
continue to erect what most people in the business sector see as major barriers to economic growth, such as the Resource
Management Amendment Bill and the Land Transport Management Bill?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Because we do not agree with business, particularly on the former. In any case, 3 years ago we
were forecast that this economy would grind to a permanent halt and no new jobs would be created. Over the last year we
have had the fastest growth rate in the OECD and well over 100,000 new jobs. Cassandra, I am afraid, is one of the few
people left on the unemployed index at the present time.
Questions for Oral Answer
Electricity—Dobson Hydro Scheme
4. GORDON COPELAND (United Future) to the Minister of Conservation: With the worsening electricity crisis and concerns
for adequate electricity supply in future years, will he reconsider amending the Conservation Act 1987 to enable the
proposed Dobson hydro scheme to go ahead as the proposed scheme is in a high rainfall area; if not, why not?
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation): No, I will not. The proposed power scheme would take some time to construct
and is irrelevant in terms of the electricity situation this winter. The modest amount of power likely from this scheme
does not, in any case, justify the flooding of an area of valley floor kahikitea, and matai forest protected within an
ecological area and established by the National Government in 1983.
Gordon Copeland: When the Minister stated in the Greymouth Evening Star with reference to the Dobson hydro proposal that
there are “better projects around”, what specific projects was he referring to?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: There are quite a number of options that were suggested in that very same paper that the member
referred to. I would suggest that he and other members of the House agree to my tabling this document, which I propose
to do now. I seek leave to table an article from the Greymouth Evening Star, which lists quite a number of—
Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister could also list a couple of those options as requested. I will take the tabling of the
document at the end of the question.
Hon CHRIS CARTER: Project Aqua, the proposed scheme for the Waitaki River, would generate up to 570 megawatts compared
with the 60 megawatts from the proposed Dobson scheme. The New Zealand Herald on 16 April had a suggestion from Mighty
River Power that it would put a 100-megawatt geothermal plant at Kawerau. Those would be much more viable options.
David Parker: Has the Minister seen any reports on other power generation proposals for the West Coast?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am trying to gather how this goes now. Mr Copeland asked
the question. United Future has an understanding with this Government in respect of supply, and now you are giving Mr
Parker a supplementary question. Now that is not how it goes in this House.
Mr SPEAKER: Well, I am sorry, but that is how it has gone in the last 4 years.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, it is not going to go on for many more.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: No, the member will not raise that point of order.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I have raised it.
Mr SPEAKER: Well, I have ruled it out.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I want to finish my point of order and not be constantly interrupted before I have completed what
I want to say. The fact of the matter is that everybody on this side of the House expected the next question to come to
this side after Mr Copeland’s supplementary question. That is what the press gallery and everybody else watching this TV
show would be expecting.
Hon Dover Samuels: A TV show!
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, it is being shown to about 70,000 New Zealanders who have nothing better to do. My point
is, why is there a change now?
Mr SPEAKER: There has been no change. The United Future party is not part of the Government coalition.
David Parker: Has the Minister seen any reports on other power generation proposals for the West Coast?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I have seen an excellent report in the Greymouth Evening Star, the headline of which was “Plugging
into the Coast’s power potential”. I seek leave of the House to table this, as there seems to be a great deal of
interest in the subject.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection? There is.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did he, in an interview on National Radio on 16 April, say: “This project has already been to the
High Court and was rejected.”, when in fact it has never been to the High Court or any other court, and the decision was
made by a Minister of the Crown, or is this just part of a misleading campaign for this Government not to take
responsibility for its own decisions?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: Clearly, that member was not listening carefully to the interview, because in that interview I made
the point that the topic had been to the High Court. In fact, that member should remember that in 1995 his predecessor,
Denis Marshall, as Minister of Conservation, declined the flooding of an area of conservation land in Buller for a hydro
scheme. It was tested in the High Court and thrown out.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table this transcript, which says “This project—”
Mr SPEAKER: The member knows tabling is done at the end of a question. However, the Minister twice asked for leave to
table. I allowed it, and as I have done that for him I will now allow it for the member. Is there any objection to the
tabling of Dr Nick Smith’s statement? There is.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to read the transcript so the House can be clear about exactly what the
Minister did say on National Radio.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to read the transcript. Is there any objection? There is.
Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have not read the transcript, but I heard my colleague read a
sentence when he sought the tabling of it, and the quote was “This project—”. Given that the Minister in his answer said
he did not talk about the project, he talked about the topic, I wonder whether the Minister wishes to reconsider his
answer, because answers in this House are meant to be accurate, and if the Minister has misrepresented this to the
House, now is the time to correct it.
Mr SPEAKER: That is up to the member or the Minister.
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I want to make it clear to the House that my recollection of that interview was that flooding
ecological land is the topic I was talking about. My reference—[Interruption] I thank Dr Smith. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I warn people about calling out and interjecting during Points of Order
.
Gerry Brownlee: It’s not a point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: It is a point of order, Mr Brownlee, and that is your last warning for the day. It is a point of order and
the member is speaking to it.
Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member is misusing the point of order procedure. He
should actually be seeking leave to make an explanation, which the House would give to him, but he should do it
properly, not under a point of order procedure.
Mr SPEAKER: No. The member can raise a point of order outside the point of order. This is supplementary question
material so far that I have been listening to, not a point of order. The member was speaking to the point of order. Had
the Minister finished?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: No, I had not.
Hon Richard Prebble: That’s a complete abuse of the point of order procedure.
Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated. The member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Hon Richard Prebble: I stand, withdraw, and apologise, and say we are having a complete abuse of the point of order
procedure. The member is correcting his answer, and you and I know that he should not do that by way of a point of
order. He should seek leave and make a proper explanation.
Mr SPEAKER: The member will now leave the Chamber. He is way out of order.
Hon Richard Prebble: So I am now being thrown out for insisting that the Standing Orders be followed. What you are doing
is outrageous.
Mr SPEAKER: The member will leave the Chamber.
Hon Richard Prebble: I made a legitimate point of order, you know I am correct, and you are now throwing me out.
Mr SPEAKER: The member will leave the Chamber.
Hon Richard Prebble withdrew from the Chamber.
Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was on his feet explaining the difference, and in
fact used the words “in his recollection”—referring to whether it was an individual project or the general topic. That
is, in fact, correcting the answer. He took my invitation, which you said he was entitled to take, to correct his
answer. It is quite wrong to do that by way of point of order. I understood he was doing it by way of a correction. When
a member then goes through the process of pointing out that simple fact as laid out under the Standing Orders and then
gets thrown out because of it, that is, I think, quite wrong.
Hon Ken Shirley: I think the House does need clarification of that point. My understanding of the Standing Orders is
quite clear. The Minister in the situation we have just experienced should have sought the leave of the House to make an
explanation. My colleague Richard Prebble has been thrown out of the House for standing up for the rights of the
Opposition on this issue, and I think that does give the Chair cause for reflection. I suggest that was an
over-reaction. I also suggest that if that interpretation is correct, you should invite my colleague to return to the
Chamber forthwith.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: It is clear to me, having watched the episode, that Mr Prebble was thrown out for continuing to
interject and yell abuse at the Chair during a point of order.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: The problem here arose because a Minister sought to clarify a situation from his memory, when he
knew full well that in front of him—provided by Dr Smith—was the transcript, which, if read out, would have solved the
problem. It is sneaky and it is weasel words; that is what has been condoned here.
Mr SPEAKER: I first want to deal with the matter of Mr Prebble. He was not thrown out for attempting to raise a point of
order; he was thrown out for defying the Chair. That was the reason, and the same will happen to anyone who does that. I
will not have that in this House. The second point is that the Minister was speaking to a point of order, but it is
clear that it was not a valid point of order, and the matter ends at this point. However, supplementary questions can
continue.
John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are two points I want to make. The first is that when the
Minister was answering his question initially, he had a document in front of him. You directed him to read from the
document to make a couple of points from it —
Mr SPEAKER: In answer to the question.
John Carter: Correct, in answer to his question. I wonder therefore, given that you gave him an instruction, or
suggested to him that he read from the document, whether you might suggest to him that he read from the transcript so
that the House does know what it states. You could ask him to do that in the same way that you asked him in the first
instance. That would clarify the matter for us and it would be useful. The second point I want to make is, given that
you have asked Mr Prebble to leave—under circumstances that there has been some question about—I wonder whether you
could ask him to be recalled at the end of this question.
Mr SPEAKER: No, I will not because, as every member knows, he was thrown out defying the Chair and shouting abuse, which
he cannot do. That was the reason he was thrown out, and everyone knows it. On the member’s first point, all I can say
is that if a member or a Minister has misled the House, there is an appropriate way to deal with that matter, and we all
know what that way is. I can then receive correspondence on the matter.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a serious development that arises from your last
statement—that is, Ministers who wait until some distant time in the day, when no one is in the House, when the press
gallery is totally empty, and when the television lights are off, and then come down to the House and correct their
answer. It is wrong, and they should be told either to make the correction immediately or to take the consequences the
next day in a privilege hearing.
Mr SPEAKER: If I thought that to be the case, I would be first to jump on the Minister as hard as I could.
Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There has been much confusion here. First of all, I do not believe
that Mr Chris Carter called out “Speaking to the point of order”. So there was some confusion as to what grounds he was
on his feet. I think, if you reflect back, you yourself were confused, because at one point you said he was speaking to
a point of order and in another point you thought he was answering a question. He cannot have been doing both, and if he
was correcting an answer there is a proper procedure. I think that it is harsh.
We had supplementary questions to ask the Minister raised by Mr Prebble. There was a lot of concern—not just on the part
of members of the Opposition but it should be on the part of members of this whole House—about answers given by
Ministers and the appropriate way in which those answers are corrected. We had a situation with a Minister on his feet,
but under what pretence or guise—
Mr SPEAKER: I have consulted. The member was speaking to a point of order and not answering a question. There is no
current supplementary question before the House, and I am prepared to call—
Hon CHRIS CARTER: For the sake of speed and of getting through question time, I seek leave now to make a personal
statement.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. It is in relation to this matter, I presume?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: It is in relation to this matter.
Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: No, the member can only object. He cannot speak to it. Is there any objection? I call the Hon Chris Carter.
Hon CHRIS CARTER: On quite a number of occasions I have been asked questions on this issue before and it has been raised
in the House. I spoke recently at a meeting of mayors in Kaikoura on the issue of the dam on the Arnold River near
Dobson. On each occasion I have made reference to the actions of Mr Denis Marshall when he was Minister of Conservation,
and to having this issue tested in the High Court. I have used it, if one likes, as a sort of icon case about the
difficulty of flooding or damaging conservation land. My recollection of the interview on Radio New Zealand is that I
made reference to that. Now, as all members of this House know, I have not read the transcript yet. It may well give the
impression that I was referring specifically to the Dobson case. If it does, I apologise to this House. In fact, I was
referring to the precedent set on the Buller case, under the National Government. That is as issue I have referred to
many times, and, perhaps, may well refer to again in the future.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This Minister has compounded the problem. He was given,
then, a clear chance to go to the transcript he has before him, and to read that out. That is what the question was
about; that is what he was required to answer. Instead, he took the time to make a ministerial statement, and, in an
evasive and obtuse way, he tried clumsily to get out of it.
Mr SPEAKER: We cannot discuss a personal explanation made to this House.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why in the—
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I hope it is not going over this matter any further.
Gerry Brownlee: Yes, it is. It relates to Standing Order 343, and members have a right to ask the Chair questions
relating to the Standing Orders. That Standing Order is very clear: a member may make a personal explanation about
matters of a personal nature, with the leave of the House. I assume that when the Minister spoke to the mayors, at
whichever gathering it was, it was as the Minister, and I assume that when he spoke in the radio interview, of which the
transcript is provided, he was speaking as the Minister, so his statement should have been a ministerial statement.
Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to read the second sentence in that Standing Order: “A personal explanation may not be
debated.”
Gerry Brownlee: That is exactly the point I raise. The Hon Chris Carter should not have used a personal explanation in
the way he has. There is nothing personal about that at all. He is trying to explain his actions as a Minister. It seems
that the Opposition’s role of scrutinising a Minister is being subverted by his being allowed to pursue this particular
Standing Order in his own defence.
Mr SPEAKER: No. He sought leave from the House. I asked twice and leave was given.
Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I also raise a matter, because I think we have missed the point
here. Standing Order 343 is clearly about a personal explanation. The Minister was not giving a personal explanation; he
was replying in his ministerial capacity to a matter under his responsibilities as a Minister. His statement should have
been a ministerial statement. I think we need a clarification of this point before we move on.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The fact that the member is a Minister does not get around the fact that if a member is talking
about words he has used, and whether he may have misled the House in using those words, that is a matter of a personal
explanation. Whether one is saying that about what one said as a Minister, or simply as an individual, the same
conditions apply. It does not require a ministerial statement. For one thing, a personal explanation has to be believed
by the House; a ministerial statement does not.
Stephen Franks: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: No, I am ready to rule on this matter. I say, once again, that the Minister chose to ask for leave. I twice
asked, and the House concurred. A personal explanation can be used about an answer a Minister has given. That is always
the way in which a misleading reply is cleared up. The Minister chose to do that right now instead of later as it was
suggested he might do.
Stephen Franks: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I need guidance now, because the supplementary question I am about
to seek the call for is, in effect, debating the correctness of the statement that has just been made. I did not know
anything about the background—
Mr SPEAKER: I will give the member the perfect opportunity to ask his supplementary question and I will listen to it
very carefully and liberally.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: In the same Radio New Zealand interview, why did the Minister refer to it as “a little micro dam”,
and four times referred to it as “a micro hydro scheme”, when in all the expert literature, both from an engineering and
sector point of view, they are schemes less than 5 megawatts, when this is a 62 megawatt scheme, and noting that in my
own electorate of Nelson 400 people have been put out of work because of the power shortages in our region, will he now
not accept that he has consistently misled the public about his responsibility, and the importance of this scheme to the
top of the south?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I can give that member the assurance that I will now call it a middle-sized hydro scheme.
Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, I call the Hon Ken Shirley.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Why am I not getting the question?
Mr SPEAKER: The member has had a supplementary question on this question, and Mr Shirley from ACT has not.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, I have not.
Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry, the member has had a supplementary question on this question. Both I and the Clerk have it
registered.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, I have not. I do not care what he has written down there. I have not.
Mr SPEAKER: If the member assures me that he has not, I accept his word, and I will call him as soon as I have called Mr
Shirley.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We did not slave to get ourselves No. 3 in this country’s
politics to be taken No. 4 and No. 5 in this House. Those are the rules. Those are the precedents that go back a long,
long way, and I am asserting them.
Hon Ken Shirley: Sit down, Winston.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Shut up. Sit down. I am speaking. It is my point of order. Sit him down.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise my point again. You know the order of precedence in this House. This is the second time
today I believe that you have attempted to rearrange them, reassert them, or reorganise them. We do not accept that. I
am now asking to have this question.
Mr SPEAKER: Whether through error or not, I have already called Mr Shirley. I will call the member next.
Hon Ken Shirley: How does the Minister reconcile his repeated statement that the Conservation Act precludes him from
engaging in land swaps that would allow the Department of Conservation to receive 700 hectares of prime forested land on
Mount Buckley in exchange for some 250 hectares of cut-over lands in Card Creek, thus allowing the significant expansion
of TrustPower’s Arnold River power scheme; how does he reconcile those statements with the fact that last September he
engaged in a land swap of Department of Conservation land in Jackson’s Bay to allow Te Runanga o Makawhia to build a
marae?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: That member’s question contains a number of erroneous points. The one I would like to address
principally is that the Mount Buckley area that is proposed for exchange has itself been logged for timber, and, in any
case, is under no threat. It is hill country forest, whereas the area that is to be flooded is valley floor kahikatea of
which we have less than 5 percent left in the country.
Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. It was how did he reconcile the
land swap issue with—
Mr SPEAKER: No, please be seated. The Minister addressed the question. He might not have given a satisfactory answer,
but that is not my concern.
Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He did not address the question. The question was not in two
parts; it was one question: How does he reconcile the fact that he is claiming there cannot be a land swap for Arnold
River because it is Department of Conservation land, yet last September the Minister engaged in a land swap of
Department of Conservation land to allow a marae to be built in Jackson’s Bay?
Mr SPEAKER: The member is only using debating material.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Before I ask my supplementary question, am I right or wrong about having a question asked on this
issue? I am right, am I not?
Mr SPEAKER: Two of us—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Just say so, so we can get things clear.
Mr SPEAKER: I thought the member had.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am telling you I was not—
Mr SPEAKER: I have accepted the member’s word.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, and my point is that we are not going to take you reorganising question time as you please.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I think I am entitled to an apology.
Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated. I am getting sick and tired of this.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: So am I.
Mr SPEAKER: Now the member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: No, I am on my feet and I am ruling. I say to the member that I checked to see whether he had a question. I
listed it. I carefully asked my assistant. He listed New Zealand First. A member of his own party came to the Table to
check, because there was some confusion about it. I said that if I had made an error I accepted the member’s word, and I
have accepted the member’s word. I then called Mr Shirley. There has not been any change. In future, of course, he will
get called third.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: That is not my point. My point of order is that we do not accept your decision in respect of Mr
Parker, and I certainly do not in this case as well. That is twice in the space of four questions. We are not going to
accept that. I am asking you to explain why it happened.
Mr SPEAKER: The member will now be seated. Now the member will stand, withdraw, and apologise. I am not going to have
the ruling about Mr Parker questioned, because it has been consistent with the rulings I have given over 4 years, and I
have already said to the member that I accepted his word on the other. We have finished that particular point. I want
now to come to the member’s supplementary question, which he is entitled to ask.
Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not wishing to have Mr Peters expelled from this Chamber but I
ask you to reflect on the issue of consistency, when you consider your treatment of Mr Prebble who, in contesting the
application of the Standing Orders and having an exchange with you, was not asked to withdraw or apologise but was
summarily thrown out of this Chamber. When Mr Peters did the same thing, and again I am not saying that Mr Peters should
be thrown out at all, he was treated with some considerable leniency and was then asked to withdraw and apologise. I
suggest that what is good for one leader should be good for the other and indeed for all members of this House. I ask
you to reflect on that sincerely, and reflect on whether you treated Mr Prebble a little harshly.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Indeed you did call upon Mr Prebble to withdraw and apologise, and in fact he did do so and then
carried on yelling from his seat at you, on a regular and continuous basis for a period of time, which Mr Peters did not
do.
Mr SPEAKER: That is precisely correct.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: When he had before him the transcript beginning with the words “This project”, why did he not
read it to the House, or is it that the transcript again says everything he has attempted to explain to this House since
he was asked to qualify what he said?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I repeat to this House that if I gave the impression that I was talking about the Dobson project, I
apologise. What I was referring to was the precedent set by the Buller case—something I have referred to often.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister believe that Dobson is the only site on the West Coast on which a
hydroelectricity dam could be built that would make economic and environmental sense, as implied by TrustPower; if not,
why not?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: No, a number of options are available and I refer the member again to this article, which I am about
to table in the House.
Gordon Copeland: Has the Minister visited the site of the Dobson hydro scheme; if so, what are his impressions
concerning its environmental robustness?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: No, but I am going there in a couple of weeks’ time. However, I do have full confidence in the
ecological reports describing the area, including those done by TrustPower.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: If conservation land is so sacrosanct that the status can never be changed, why is there before this
House a bill in his name, the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, that changes the conservation status of eight
different blocks of land, including ecological reserve; and why does this Minister simply not come clean and say: “This
is not a legal issue but it is a political issue in which this party is being held to ransom by the Greens.”?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: That member once held the position of Minister of Conservation, and he, I am sure, knows that section
7 and section 16 of the Conservation Act relate to the disposal of conservation land. As the Buller case, which I have
referred to a number of times in this House, showed in the High Court, to change that would require major change. That
member, when he was the Minister of Conservation, added 1,800 hectares to the Dobson site. Why does he want to destroy
it now?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table a map of the area involved in the Dobson dam that shows quite
clearly that the area that it is proposed for is nowhere near the area that was added by the National Government.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Stephen Franks: Why did the Minister tell Radio New Zealand that he would need a law change to allow the Dobson Valley
scheme to proceed using an infinitesimal fraction of the Department of Conservation’s gorse and broom, when section
18(7) of the Conservation Act states specifically that the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, vary or revoke the
purpose or all or any of the purposes for which an ecological area is held, and it shall thereafter be held
accordingly.”? I urge the Minister to consider the consequences of deliberately misleading the House.
Mr SPEAKER: Please ask the question, not make a comment.
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I refer again to the Buller case, which showed that, under the current Act, one cannot destroy
ecological land for any purpose. One would have to have a law change to do it.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the High Court decision in respect of the
____________________ decision, which made it plain that the Minister had the discretion.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Gerrard Eckhoff: Further to the question from my colleague Mr Ken Shirley, why will the Minister not consent to the
Arnold River scheme to proceed to build a hydro dam by swapping Department of Conservation land, as he did last
September when he swapped prime rimu forest in Jacksons Bay to allow the building of a marae?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I am not prepared to swap land of a lesser value for land of more value that would be destroyed.
Gordon Copeland: Given that one of the Minister’s reasons for turning down the Dobson hydro dam proposal was that
conservation groups would be outraged, did he take into account the views of any other groups and their probable
reaction, for example, the people of the West Coast?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I was delighted to drive 2½ hours from Christchurch to Kaikoura, then 2½ hours back to Christchurch,
last week to meet the mayors of the upper North Island to discuss this very issue. One of the hallmarks of my ministry,
I hope, is a willingness, and a desire, to engage with anyone interested in conservation issues.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether he will now read out from the transcript the comments
beginning “This project”, or can I take his decline to do so as clear evidence that he has misled this House
deliberately?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: Like, probably, most members of this House, I am very keen to see question time end soon, so I am not
prepared to.
Mr SPEAKER: So too am I, and that does not help. I want the Minister now to address the question, or I will be taking
further steps.
Hon CHRIS CARTER: No.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I first asked the Minister whether he would read it out,
and the answer to that is yes or no. Secondly, I asked whether I can I take his refusal to read it out as clear evidence
of his attempt to mislead this House. He has given us half an answer. I want the answer to the first question.
Mr SPEAKER: I heard the Minister say “no” quite clearly. That addressed that question.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is pretty rudimentary stuff. I asked whether the
Minister would read it out, and the answer to that is yes or no. I then asked whether I could take an answer of “no” to
mean that he had deliberately attempted to mislead the House. Is the answer to that to be no for the first question, no
for the second question, or half an answer to both questions?
Mr SPEAKER: I am now losing patience. The member was asked a specific question. He said no, and there cannot be any
clearer answer than that, except to say yes.
Questions for Oral Answer
Electricity—Savings
5. GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) to the Minister of Energy: Are any incentives being developed by the Government to
encourage consumers to make the 10 percent electricity savings called for by Winter Power Taskforce co-ordinator Dr
Patrick Strange; if not, why not?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy): Incentives for power savings in the form of buy-back programmes from electricity
retailers will be part of the industry’s response to the prospect of power shortages this winter. Those programmes were
successful in 2001, and will add to the existing financial incentive for saving electricity, which is a lower power
bill.
Gerry Brownlee: Will those incentives apply from yesterday—the date of the 10 percent savings target announcement—or
should householders postpone any savings until they know how much the incentive is, and when it will apply from?
Hon PETE HODGSON: Consumers certainly should not postpone making any savings, because they will get a lower power bill
as a result, and will reduce the chances of problems in winter. I imagine that retailers will roll out their various
programmes over the next week or two. They will include programmes that operate at the individual customer level, and
those that operate at the community level, where the savings are gathered and returned into the community in some
project or other, as they were in 2001.
Russell Fairbrother: How easy is it for domestic electricity customers to save 10 percent on their power bill?
Hon PETE HODGSON: The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority advises that domestic electricity consumers can save
10 percent on their power bill relatively easily by switching off appliances at the wall when they are not in use,
taking short showers instead of baths, switching off unnecessary lighting, and so on. Information on simple measures to
save electricity will be made more widely available in a substantial advertising campaign beginning this weekend.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: What progress has been made towards the provisions in the National Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Strategy to encourage solar water heating—namely, a market transformation programme, with a target of
10,000 new installations a year, and a Government purchase programme to stimulate the solar water heater market—and
would that have made a difference if it had started last year?
Hon PETE HODGSON: The Government hopes to make announcements in regard to those matters in the next week or two. All
those things help; when one starts to do the arithmetic, one finds that they are not usually useful, but everything
helps.
Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister agree with the proposal from Meridian Energy to supply its customers with
draught-stoppers, energy-saver light bulbs, and hot water cylinder wraps, and how many draught-stoppers, energy-saver
light bulbs, and hot water cylinder wraps would it take to meet the 10 percent savings target, and where do people sign
up for the delivery of those goods?
Hon PETE HODGSON: In order, the answers to the questions are: that is Meridian’s business; quite a lot; and I do not
know.
Questions for Oral Answer
Social Policy—Development
6. HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) to the Minister of Social Services and Employment: What initiatives is the Government taking
to improve social policy development?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment): This morning I announced an $8.6 million package of
initiatives to ensure social policy development is supported by high-quality social research. The centrepiece is a
project to encourage social science research networking, leadership, and collaboration within, and between, university
and public service sectors. The project will encourage social science research excellence, help identify and plug key
research gaps, and ensure public sector policy development is informed by timely, relevant, and excellent New Zealand
research.
Helen Duncan: What examples is the Minister aware of where social research has contributed to better outcomes for New
Zealanders?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: One example would be the evaluation of the work-for-the-dole scheme in the late 1990s, which proved
that the scheme failed. It actually prevented people from finding work and ensured that they stayed on the dole longer.
I congratulate Roger Sowry on commissioning the work-for-the-dole evaluation, which proved that National’s current
policy is a failure and will be a failure in the future if it ever gets a chance to implement it. It should be grateful
for this research.
Judith Collins: Why does one of the Minister’s social policy initiatives involve spending $400,000 of taxpayers’ money
on research into the increase in the number of sickness and invalids beneficiaries when he has previously supposedly
given definitive reasons for the dramatic increase in numbers, and why can he not just accept that this Government’s
slack welfare policies are the real reason behind the massive increases?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: What I have said in the past is that we have an idea of why we think these benefit numbers are
increasing but that we need to do definitive research, and that is what the money is for. I understand that the member’s
party intends to introduce work testing of sickness and invalids beneficiaries again, if it ever gets a chance to do so.
I am appalled by that policy.
Barbara Stewart: Do those policy initiatives include significant means for reducing the 621-day investigation period of
an urgent Child, Youth and Family Services case, or will the Minister continue to publicly wring his hands, agree that
it is not good enough, and accept no responsibility?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member may have missed part of the discussion about the case that she raises in which I said that
we do not accept that length of time. In the performance agreement the department now has a maximum of 6 months.
Sue Bradford: Given the Government’s stated commitment to partnership with the community sector, why is the Minister
ignoring the large potential resource of community-based research and, instead, focusing his new programme on funding
and increased support for academics, especially given the fact that there are already 300-plus policy analysts at the
Ministry of Social Development?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It is appropriate that we do focus the bulk of our work on the people who do the research, and they
happen to be in tertiary institutions. But if the member reads my speech from this morning she will see that we made a
great deal of effort to include consultation with the community in the way that this research will need to be done. That
is why a large number of community-based people are at the social policy conference today and tomorrow. This is the
single biggest social policy conference that I can remember in the history of this country, and they are there.
Judy Turner: In the light of the Minister’s comment this morning at the social policy research conference when he said:
“Historically, social research by Government agencies has been disparate.”, can he confirm to the House whether the
Government plans to absorb the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and the Ministry of Youth Affairs into the Ministry of Social
Development?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can confirm to the House that we do not intend to absorb those ministries into the Ministry of
Social Development.
Questions for Oral Answer
Police—Car Crash Inquiries
7. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Police: Do the reported press comments by Police
Association president Greg O’Connor regarding “the state failing to deliver justice to its people”, because of the
police’s inability to carry out car crash inquiries, have substance?
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police): No. Police policy around responses to traffic crashes has remained unchanged
since it was formulated in the early 1990s. The commissioner expects police to respond to all fatal and injury
accidents.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that the New Zealand Herald article of 29 April that reads: “Police in
parts of Auckland have given up investigating minor car crashes and are telling victims to deal with the offenders
themselves.”, or, further, reports that victims of a random shooting out of a car parked on a victim’s property had to
wait 8 hours before the police attended, or, for example, the sending of a form letter from police to victims of vehicle
accidents advising those involved that they are on their own, are examples of proactive policing, or what?
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I do not think that any of those examples are acceptable. However, I tell the member that the police
have been using the same standard letter for a long while. It was last modified on 14 September 1999—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am asking the Minister whether those reports have
substance and whether they are true. He is attempting to give us a diatribe of what happened in the dim, dark past, at a
time for which he was not responsible as Minister. That is my point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: The point of order is not well based. The Minister did address the question. I heard him say so myself.
Martin Gallagher: Has the Commissioner of Police stated that the ability to respond to reported offences is due to lack
of resources; if not, what information has the Minister received about the current level of resources available to
individual police districts?
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The commissioner and I held a media conference on this matter yesterday. The commissioner stated
that it is not a matter of resources. The Government funds the police, and the commissioner sets district budgets. For
example, the budget for the Auckland police district has increased significantly between the 1999-2000 year and 2002-03.
Over that time the personnel budget has increased by 9 percent, the operational budget by 38 percent, and the total
budget by 14 percent.
94: Can the Minister categorically state that there are no other crimes that the police are telling people to
investigate themselves, and is this not just the Government’s solution to try to lower the crime rates by having less
crime reported?
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I cannot give a categorical denial of that. From time to time police resources are stretched.
However, I would say that the police are doing far better. This Government has set standards for them that burglaries
should be attended within 24 hours. The police are doing well achieving that compared with what happened under the
National Party, which was abysmal.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Minister make that statement in respect of police resourcing, when there is only a 40
percent clearance of reported crime, first of all, and when every member of this Parliament dealing with any region or
district, has been told by the local police that police are under-resourced and under extraordinary stress?
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The amount of resolved crime has been higher under this Government than any other Government, and I
have to say the police officers who want more resources want to catch more crooks always, and they use every opportunity
they can to lobby. The commissioner lobbies me, and we deliver.
Marc Alexander: Does the Minister agree that the raising of the bar for crimes that warrant police attention will soon
extend to other offences where victims may tend to over-exaggerate the crime in order to compete for the attention of a
police force that is seemingly overwhelmed by the sheer volume of crime; if not, why not?
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I think some victims do exaggerate the nature of the crime, and that is because crime impacts on
people at different levels. I seek leave to table a letter, last modified on 14 July 1999, from the Balmoral Police
Station.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
94: I seek leave to table two documents. The first shows that fewer than _______ in 10 burglaries in Auckland are being
resolved under this Government, and the second is a report from the Insurance Council of New Zealand describing the
police as under-resourced, underfunded, and under stress.
Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Questions for Oral Answer
Genetic Engineering—Risk to GDP
8. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Why did Treasury advice to him describe the range
of impacts on GDP from use of genetically modified organisms as being from a “best-case scenario” of plus 2.5 percent to
a “worst case scenario” of minus 1.3 percent when an April 2003 BERL-AERU report on this topic includes scenarios with
greater risks to GDP?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): BERL-AERU was asked to consider the full range of theoretically possible
outcomes. Treasury in reporting to Ministers chose, sensibly, to focus on likely outcomes.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Was he aware that US research on productivity from genetically engineered (GE) soya beans shows
they produce, on average, across all states, 5 percent less than conventional soya beans, when he accepted Treasury
advice that the scenario assuming zero productivity gains from a GE crop was not likely and should be ignored?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The reason for ignoring such an unlikely outcome is that it is very unlikely that farmers would
continue to plant crops or use genetically modified (GM) stock that continues to show zero productivity growth.
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: How is the Government planning to maximise the benefits and minimise the risks of genetically
modified organisms?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Government will institute an extremely rigorous case by case approvals process that will
ensure that New Zealand can build on its strong biotechnology sector, while maintaining strong environmental safeguards.
Dr Paul Hutchison168Dr Paul Hutchison: Given that the economic reports in question are based on fundamental assumptions
about New Zealand, does he consider that the New Zealand environment is, in reality, clean, green, and GM free, and what
evidence has he to support his answer?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Certainly, and this is quite relevant to the research, the perception of people overseas is very
strongly that New Zealand was clean and green, but equally we all know there are many examples of where we are not so
clean and not so green.
Larry Baldock: Does the Minister agree with recent Treasury advice stating: “It is unlikely that overseas consumers
would know, or bring to mind at point of sale, the GM attributes of New Zealand, when deciding whether to purchase New
Zealand’s export products.”; if so, does he also agree that this shows any negative realworld effect of the release of
GM organisms in New Zealand on gross domestic product (GDP), at least as far as export earnings are concerned?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, indeed, there is evidence in the report, which demonstrates that people often did not
recognise GM-free labelling and make decisions on that basis. There was also a tendency for people to say they would
respond to GM free but less likely to do so in terms of paying the price increase in actual practice.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Was he aware of the international survey commissioned by Discovery Channel, which showed that 58
percent of all those polled in eight nations are unwilling to eat GM food, when he accepted Treasury advice that the
scenario showing no adverse market reaction at all was credible and should be further considered?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am aware of such surveys. I am also aware the member claimed that the most likely outcome of GM
free was 7.5 percent growth of GDP, when in fact that extreme scenario was under the assumption, firstly, that New
Zealand was GM free, and, secondly, that either all other countries were not, but nobody knew about it, or were and had
no productivity gains. Either way, it seems extremely unlikely.
Sue Kedgley: How could Treasury credibly conclude in its advice to him that it was highly likely GM-food exports would
have no effect on market access or price, when the European Union was about to introduce a comprehensive new labelling
regime that will require identification of all food produced by GM technology, and which will lower the threshold for GM
contamination?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The European Union, of course, is also one of the largest producers of genetically modified food
in the world, and there are always questions around any action by the European Union as to whether it has got to do with
a trade barrier or something to do with food safety.
Ian Ewen-Street: How can genetic engineering be in any way good for New Zealand’s economy, when all realistic scenarios
show negative impacts on farmers, unless one assumes that GE has no negative impact on export demand—a scenario that has
not occurred anywhere in the world?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, the last assumption is wrong. If I go back to the case previously noted—if the same scenario
was tested, on the assumption there were productivity gains from genetic modification, the net benefit to New Zealand
was not plus-7.5 percent, but negative.
Questions for Oral Answer
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome—District Health Boards
9. Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) to the Minister of Health: Has every district health board by now a
comprehensive action plan for community and hospital care of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome, and a
budget to meet that action plan?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): Yes. Every board now has a comprehensive action plan for community and hospital
care for patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) and a budget to meet that action plan.
Dr Lynda Scott: Why, when the admission of a suspected Sars patient to Auckland Hospital prompted an urgent review of
procedures on 19 March, are staff there still scared, and Dr Colin Macarthur described the hospital as “having a
physically inadequate environment”?
Hon ANNETTE KING: In the week since Sars was first notified as a disease many changes have been made in the handling of
this case, as have been described and explained to the member in the briefings given in my office and the regular
updates that have been given to all Opposition spokespeople. However, Colin Macarthur has also said that he believes
that Auckland Hospital is well prepared to handle a case of Sars, which we will inevitably get in New Zealand at some
stage.
Steve Chadwick: Has the Minister seen any comments that nurses feel vulnerable because they do not have the resources to
assist patients and are at risk of catching the disease themselves; if so, what feedback has she received?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, the Nurses Organisation informed me today that nurses are anxious to provide good care and it is
generally satisfied that they have the knowledge to provide that care safely. The organisation is comfortable that
nurses have the knowledge and the equipment needed, and that nurses around New Zealand are generally expressing
satisfaction with the preparedness of hospitals.
Pita Paraone: Notwithstanding the importance for internal community and hospital care, is the Minister confident in her
border control provisions, given a recent newspaper report with regard to a man treated for Sars who arrived at Auckland
airport from Thailand “coughing his guts out”, who was not screened by officials and had to admit himself to hospital
after arriving in Christchurch?
Hon ANNETTE KING: There have been two cases where there has been suspected cases of Sars to date. That was not one case.
However, as the member probably now knows, we have nurses at our major airports who are checking people for symptoms as
they come through. Coughing and hacking on their own are not symptoms for Sars. Sars has other symptoms, as well.
Heather Roy: Can the Minister deny that New Zealand does not have enough facemasks of a standard to guarantee protection
of all nurses and doctors against Sars, and can she give a guarantee that New Zealand will have enough before this
disease hits the country?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Unfortunately, the member was unable to attend the briefing that was given this morning. However, her
researcher was there and he asked that question. He was assured that at this stage we have enough masks in New Zealand.
Dr Lynda Scott: Why did it take a television documentary to expose the inadequate environment for treating suspected
Sars patients at Auckland hospital, given that the Minister has described the arrival of Sars in New Zealand as
inevitable?
Hon ANNETTE KING: It certainly did not take the Sunday programme to expose any inadequacies at Auckland hospital. In
fact, David Sage, who is the chief medical officer for the Auckland board, said that the programme was disappointingly
alarmist. The member raised the issue of one room that was shown on the Sunday programme. She may be interested to know
that Auckland hospital has a total of 30 negative-pressure beds, and 43 ventilated beds in the Auckland region. That
does not sound like a region unprepared.
Questions for Oral Answer
Schools—Staffing Review Group
10. GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Education: What steps is the Government taking to implement
the recommendations of the schools Staffing Review Group?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): A substantial 774 extra teachers.
Georgina Beyer: Will the Government invest in initiatives to improve teacher supply?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes, $22 million extra, which is a 50 percent increase over 4 years.
Hon Brian Donnelly: What is the point in funding additional secondary teaching positions when positions that already
exist cannot be filled or are being filled with teachers of marginal quality, and is it not true that if schools fill
these new positions with the latter, or worse, the system will be negatively affected now and into the future?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am really pleased to tell the member that there are over 200 extra secondary trainees, including
nearly 100 in Auckland, where the real shortage is this year. One of the good side effects of the slight disruptions we
had about 12 months ago is that we have highlighted that there were a lot of teaching jobs and a lot of people have
enrolled in training for them.
Questions for Oral Answer
Domain Names—The New Zealand Way Ltd
11. RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) to the Minister of Tourism: What, if anything, was paid for the domain name newzealand.com now
registered to The New Zealand Way Ltd, and who approved the purchase?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Tourism): The newzealand.com domain name was purchased by New Zealand Way Ltd on behalf of
its member organisations for US$500,000. As far as this relates to my ministerial responsibility, the board of Tourism
New Zealand approved its share of the purchase.
Rodney Hide: Does the Minister think this dot.com purchase of roughly NZ$1 million was a good buy, especially since
other Governments such as the United States do not own usa.com or whitehouse.com; if so, why does he think it is a good
buy?
Hon MARK BURTON: Yes, it was a good buy. There is no question that this domain will provide an invaluable portal
commercial entry into New Zealand for those interested in tourism, commerce, and industry. It has been reported that,
for instance, an offer of US$1 million was turned down by the owners of switzerland.com. The South African Government
offered virtual countries US$10 million for southafrica.com. It has also been reported that korea.com was sold for US$5
million to True Net, Korea’s largest Internet service provider. On the evidence, and certainly given the function that
it will perform for New Zealand commerce and industry, it was a sound investment.
Dianne Yates: Would the Minister reaffirm why the newzealand.com address was purchased?
Hon MARK BURTON: Yes, the newzealand.com address is, as I indicated, the obvious single point of entry for anyone on
line who has an interest in New Zealand for the purposes of tourism, trade, or investment. This portal is an important
global marketing tool for us, and ownership will ensure that it contains up-to-date and accurate information.
Rodney Hide: Did the Government or New Zealand Way Ltd give any thought to buying nz.com, gonewzealand.com,
newzealand.co.nz, or a host of other domains, used and unused, some of which are owned by New Zealanders, that could
have been picked up for so much less; if not, why not?
Hon MARK BURTON: My understanding of the decision taken—and I believe it was a sound decision—is that it was recognised
that newzealand.com reflects the clearly understood and recognised first port of call for the countries that I referred
to previously.
Rodney Hide: Rubbish!
Hon MARK BURTON: The member clearly is not a regular Internet user, but many millions of other people are.
Questions for Oral Answer
Electricity—Disruption of Supply
12. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Energy: Will the Minister inform the House of all of the
implications that he has been advised of if consumers fail to achieve the necessary savings to avoid disruption to New
Zealand’s power supply?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy): The implications will obviously depend on the extent of any electricity shortages
that might arise if demand continues to grow and supply continues to be constrained. At minimum, people can expect the
inconvenience of hot water cuts. However, if the low inflows to the hydro lakes continue, and if the savings are not
made now, then it is entirely possible that there will be more severe economic and social disruption.
Peter Brown: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that people on low incomes and elderly folk on fixed incomes
will be able to live reasonably comfortably and not suffer undue hardship?
Hon PETE HODGSON: It would be remiss of me to give any assurance because I do not know what the forecast for rain will
be over the next several months. I tell the member that saving now will significantly reduce the chances of people being
inconvenienced later. I also tell the member that although we had no blackouts or hot water cuts to speak of in 2001, in
1992 we had hot water cuts that regularly went for 18 hours a day. If one goes back a little earlier to 1973 we had
blackouts and constraints in broadcasting time. If one goes back even earlier than that to 1958 and 1947 there were
serious blackouts. So this has been part of our history. The real key is to make sure that this year we do not suffer
what we did in those earlier times.
Darren Hughes: Besides power savings, what other measures can help reduce the risk of electricity shortages this winter?
Hon PETE HODGSON: It is important that demand for electricity is reduced where possible. But we can also take steps to
increase supply. To that end the electricity industry’s winter power task force is overseeing efforts to secure new
supplies of fuel for thermal electricity generation, and is actively exploring options for short-term increases to
generation capacity.
Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that the formula used by generators to calculate the highest spot price
finalised yesterday at Haywards of some $991.63 per megawatt indicates the price later in the winter, should those
savings not be achieved, could climb as high as $3,000 per megawatt?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I can confirm that there is no formula used in the electricity market. It is simply a matter of bids
and offers. It is clear that when one gets a very, very high spot price settlement, as we did briefly yesterday and, as
I recall, the day before, then that shows that hydro generators are trying very hard not to generate at all. It also
means that thermal generation must run as far and as fast as possible. The return of the Huntly power station to full
capacity in recent days has been useful in that regard.
Peter Brown: Does the Minister accept that this country needs extra capacity fairly urgently, and that the Resource
Management Act, the Conservation Act, and now the Kyoto Protocol are presenting huge barriers to achieve that; if so,
what is he doing about it?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I do accept that the country needs capacity at the rate of about 150 megawatts a year, and there is
something like, from memory, 1,600 megawatts that has already been publicly announced as prospective. I do not accept
that the Kyoto Protocol or the Resource Management Act constrains development except for renewables, where I think the
Resource Management Act is a problem, particularly for wind, and that is why the Government has already announced its
intention to change the legislation is that regard.
Questions to Members
Questions to Members
Electricity—Inquiry into Industry
1. GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) to the Chairperson of the Commerce Committee: How much time does the committee
consider it will need to allocate to its inquiry into the electricity industry?
MARK PECK (Chairperson of the Commerce Committee)15:29:05MARK PECK (Chairperson of the Commerce Committee): That is a
matter for the committee.
End of Questions for Oral Answer
(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)