(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)
TUESDAY, 10 JUNE 2003
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers:
1. Iraq—Peacekeepers
2. Rail Network—Protection
3. United States—Prime Minister's Views
4. Housing—Supply
5. Immigrants—Qualifications
6. Te Mângai Pâho—Mâori Sportscasting International
7. Reports—United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child
8. Mâori Development—Expenditure
9. Legislation—Guardianship and Care of Children
10. Parole—Paedophiles
11. Petroleum Exploration—Canterbury Basin
12. Family Courts—Reviews
Questions for Oral Answer
Iraq—Peacekeepers
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her reported comments on 25
March that New Zealand will not provide peacekeepers in Iraq unless the United States hands over control to the United
Nations; if not, why not?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): I stand by comments I actually made, rather than distorted reports. I have
consistently said that New Zealand was prepared to help at the end of the conflict, provided there was appropriate
multilateral cover; now there is, in the form of Resolution 1483.
Hon Bill English: Why did the New Zealand Government support UN Resolution 1483, which recognised that British and
American defence forces as occupying powers with authority in Iraq and ensured that the United Nations would not be in
charge, when the stated policy of the New Zealand Government was that the UN should be in charge, not the US?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The stated policy of the New Zealand Government has always been to see that there was a vital role
for the UN. It was clear that that was a widespread international view. We worked with others to get a very good
resolution—and it is a good resolution—and we have now been able to deploy in line with it.
David Benson-Pope: When did the Prime Minister first mention the possibility of sending engineers to assist with the
reconstruction of Iraq?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I, and the Government generally, have consistently foreshadowed New Zealand’s involvement in the
rebuilding of post-conflict Iraq. In respect of engineers, as far back as 6 February this year I was reported as saying
that we would be joining an international effort for humanitarian aid, medical support, and the kind of work our army
engineers could do.
Hon Richard Prebble: Does the Prime Minister recall saying—as is reported in the Dominion Post by Tracey Watkins on 25
March—that New Zealand will not provide peacekeepers unless the United States hands over control to the United Nations;
if so, does she agree that the United States has handed over control, or, alternatively, that New Zealand has changed
its policy—which is it?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As the member well knows, those words are not in quotation marks; they are an introduction to a
Dominion Post article. They are not the words used.
Keith Locke: When the Government decided to provide additional aid to Iraq—about $12 million worth—why did it not decide
to channel that aid through civilian agencies rather than to put our army people in a British military unit, when the
British-American occupation of Iraq is increasingly hated by the Iraqi people?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The Government looked at a range of options whereby it could assist, and it determined that at this
point, apart from the agriculture commitment—which the member commented on favourably earlier—the most appropriate and
practical assistance with rebuilding could be offered by army engineers.
Ron Mark: In respect of the deployment of New Zealand troops to Iraq, what sort of risk analysis has been done on the
likely situation that our troops may well find themselves in, given the existing situation inside Iraq, and has she
already considered whether we might send in armed troops, if the situation deteriorates, to ensure that our engineers
are well protected?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member may have heard the Chief of Defence Force commenting earlier today on that issue. He made
it clear that the engineers would be able to protect themselves. They are not going in as combat troops, but as
engineers. They are all army service people, and, as the member knows from his own extensive experience, they do go
prepared to protect themselves.
Hon Peter Dunne: Was the decision to deploy New Zealand personnel made by the New Zealand Government in the form of an
offer to the United States and the United Kingdom through the United Nations, or was it in response to an invitation
from those States coming the other way for us to make assistance available?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: A number of processes have been at work here. Obviously, we have been very engaged with the UN in
the shape of the resolution. We are also very mindful of the range of tasks that are to be done. When senior Government
Ministers met on the afternoon of Monday, the 27th of last month to talk about the range of possibilities, we elected to
approach the British Government, because when I had been in Britain a few weeks before it had been very keen to see us
play a role, and we made it clear at that point that we would do so when there was appropriate authority, as we were
sure there would be. In respect of the US, we knew what the range of things was that it was thinking of in both
Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have had a continuing dialogue with it.
Hon Bill English: Given the Prime Minister’s rather startling claim that all reports of her policy up until today have
been wrong, what words did she actually say that led to this reported comment: “New Zealand will not provide
peacekeepers unless the United States hands over control to the United Nations.”?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member knows that those words were not used. They are intros and hyping up.
Hon Richard Prebble: I seek the leave of the House to table three comments from three senior members of the press
gallery, Mr Colin Espiner, John Armstrong, and Tracey Watkins, in the Christchurch Press, the New Zealand Herald, and
the Dominion Post, all of the 25th, and all completely contradicting what the Prime Minister has just told the House.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those three documents. Is there any objection? There is.
Hon Bill English: Given that the Prime Minister did not answer the last question about what she actually said, and
therefore what her policy actually was, is it because she cannot remember or because she is now going to rewrite history
about the Government’s policy that New Zealand will not provide peacekeepers unless the US hands over control to the
United Nations?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: In case the member has not noticed, we have not provided peacekeepers. We have provided engineers.
Questions for Oral Answer
Rail Network—Protection
2. HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) to the Minister of Transport: What steps has the Government taken to protect the rail
network of New Zealand and why have such steps been taken?
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport): Last Friday, the Government announced a joint plan for the restructuring and
development of the New Zealand rail system. The proposal has real potential to enable rail to move more freight and
people, reduce heavy truck traffic on roads, produce fuel-saving efficiencies, and deliver land transport in a way that
involves less wear and tear on our environment. That promotes major benefits to New Zealand.
Helen Duncan: What reports has the Minister seen supporting the Government rail deal announced on Friday?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: There have been many supportive comments from a range of sources, including the Rail Freight Action
Group, Local Government New Zealand, and the Greater Wellington Regional Council. The deal has the overwhelming support
of New Zealanders, as was shown in a recent NBR poll.
Hon Roger Sowry: How does he reconcile the Government’s position with the statement made by the Minister of Finance that
“Toll Holdings had their chance for a cooperative approach, and they essentially told us to go away and get lost.” with
the comment made by Toll Holdings managing director, Paul Little, that “I’d like to think of it perhaps more of an
opportunity now for Toll to work more closely with the Government.”, and how will these two positions advance the
prospect of this deal working?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: Easily, because that is what they said. But in the end, the Government does not see itself as a
long-term holder, and will be entering into potential opportunities if this deal is accepted by the shareholders on 11
July.
Peter Brown: Why has the Minister chosen to act now, when a few weeks ago he could have bought the whole of Tranz Rail
for 30c a share instead of 35 percent at 65c; is it because he has just become aware of the problems with our rail
system, or is it simply another Government knee-jerk reaction?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: No, the Government has been aware of some of the issues around Tranz Rail for some time, as the member
would also be aware if he reads the newspapers. The reality is that Tranz Rail requested us to be engaged in
negotiations in May, and the decision started to be taken from that point, which led to the decision last Friday. The
real point is that this was at Tranz Rail’s request, and we acted very decisively once the package had been put
together.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Minister confirm that Government ownership of the tracks, as advocated by the Greens’ rail
package 2 years ago, will help achieve integrated land transport, and can he comment on how it will assist in retaining
the Napier-Gisborne line and advancing a spur line to the new port at Marsden Point?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: Yes, I can confirm that, and of course the rail network is an important part of the New Zealand
transport strategy that the Green Party and the Labour-led Government announced just before Christmas. The reality is
that we have not been able to have a strategy without the rail network operating effectively. Of course, it now allows
us to address the issue of the Napier-Gisborne line, and the Marsden spur line as well, to take into account the
increase in freight that is likely to go along that line.
Larry Baldock: What can the Minister say to those who suggest that Tranz Rail should have been left to go into statutory
management or receivership, so that the Government could have got the cheapest possible deal, and what would have been
the economic impact of this on New Zealand’s economy?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: Those who say that do not understand, firstly, the rail business and, secondly, that the economic impact
of such a situation, where freight and people would stop being able to be moved in New Zealand, was incalculable. This
is a good deal for New Zealand and I say to the National Party that it should hang its head in shame for the mess it
created.
Hon Richard Prebble: How much work did the Government do before it committed the taxpayer to taking protection of the
rail network; firstly, did it not know that rail is actually cash positive at the moment, so no receiver would have
stopped running the railway for one minute, and, secondly, where did he get the figure of $100 million for the cost of
upgrading rail—is he aware, for example, that on the West Coast line there are 300 bridges, and that most commentators
think that the cost to the taxpayer will be many times greater—and will he resign if the figure turns out to be higher
than he has publicly said?
Mr SPEAKER: There were three questions there. The Minister may answer two.
Hon PAUL SWAIN: Considerable work was done. I am not actually aware that there are 300 bridges; I know that there are
quite a large number. But, as I say, the importance of this to the New Zealand economy is critical, and we are very
pleased to have been able to take back involvement in this important part of the transport system’s infrastructure—in
the best interests of New Zealand and New Zealanders.
Questions for Oral Answer
United States—Prime Minister's Views
3. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: What was her reaction to reported comments made by
a United States Government spokesman that personal attacks by her on President Bush had been “beyond the call” and that
her remark about Al Gore had been the “coup de grace”, and did those comments influence her decisions about deploying
New Zealand Defence Force personnel to Iraq and Afghanistan?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Very restrained, and no.
Hon Bill English: In the light of the comment from Robert Zoellick that there had been “some things done recently that
would make a free-trade agreement harder to carry to Congress”, does the Prime Minister believe that her announcement
yesterday improves the prospects of New Zealand getting a free-trade agreement, or not?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: What I am inclined to agree with are the words of the member himself. He said in the Listener a few
weeks ago that wanting a free-trade agreement was “not anything like a good or sufficient reason for being involved”.
Jill Pettis: Can the Prime Minister advise the House of the factors that the Government considered before making the
deployments?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: There were two key factors. Firstly, the Government took into account that UN Resolution 1483
provided cover for the deployments, and, secondly, there was a need for Iraq to be rebuilt as quickly as possible and
there is a need to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a failed State enabling terrorists to operate freely
from it.
Hon Ken Shirley: If the Prime Minister is relying upon the single UN Resolution 1483 for her Government’s about-face on
Iraq, how is it that none of the previous 17 UN resolutions, culminating in Resolution 1441—all of which were ignored by
Saddam Hussein—were adequate in her judgment to justify military intervention?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member will be aware of the legal advice the Government received, which said that the only
explicit authority for military intervention would have come from a fresh resolution. It was the New Zealand
Government’s view that if there were to be military intervention, there should have been such a resolution.
Peter Brown: Will the Prime Minister tell us specifically whether she acknowledges that her rather naive comments about
Bush and Gore did cause deep offence and that the sending of engineers to Iraq is an opportunity to rebuild that
relationship between New Zealand and the United States of America; and is she not taking full advantage of the
opportunity to rebuild a relationship or does she regard it as of so little importance?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is a very important relationship to us, and it is in good shape.
Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In reply to my question, the Prime Minister quoted a legal
opinion. I request that the text of that be tabled.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The comments referred to a legal opinion; the Prime Minister did not quote from it.
Mr SPEAKER: First of all, the member should have raised the issue immediately, but, secondly, and irrespective of that,
the point made was that there was mention of a legal opinion. There was no quoting from it.
Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not disputing this in any way, but we have just heard
from Mr Cullen, and if Helen Clark was relying on a legal opinion and is prepared to table it, I think it would be very
helpful.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I understand that the advice the Government got from the ministry was released under the Official
Information Act. I do not have it with me in the House today.
Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister recall making the following statement: “At some future point when there is an
issue New Zealand does need to raise with the US at the highest level, I think there is a reasonable chance of being
able to place the phone call and get the phone picked up.”; and has she made that phone call with regard to obtaining a
free-trade agreement for New Zealand?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am sure that at any such time if such a call is required it will be answered.
Questions for Oral Answer
Housing—Supply
4. GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Housing: What initiatives is the Government taking to
increase the supply of quality housing?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing): In the 2003 Budget an additional $260 million was invested in social housing.
That included some $100 million to provide another 318 State houses over the next 4 years, and to extend 80 homes to
better suit large families. That is on top of nearly 3,000 State houses currently under way or planned. In addition,
about $60 million over 4 years has been set aside to accelerate the modernisation of State housing.
Georgina Beyer: What is being done to encourage social housing partnerships with non-government groups?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: In this year’s Budget $63 million was provided to encourage greater involvement in social housing by
local government, the community sector, iwi, and church groups. Local government and third sector groups, with their
strong community links, are in an excellent position to provide local solutions to local problems. I look forward to
working cooperatively with these sectors to ensure that funding makes the maximum possible impact on the housing
situation.
Dr Wayne Mapp: Can the Minister confirm that the waiting list for Housing New Zealand houses increased by 1,500 to
11,627 in the 15 months up to 31 March 2003, and does that not demonstrate the need to review the lifetime tenancies
that currently exist, or will he just keep on building new houses without ever investigating the need to sell some of
the houses to long-term tenants?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can confirm that there are more people seeking to get into State houses because of the
income-related rents. I point out to the member that, of course, that relates to people who are in very urgent
situations, and to people who are not in situations like that at all. The situation would be a lot easier if 11,500
houses had not been sold by the National Party. I say to the member that yes the Government is ensuring that people who
do not need to be in a State house because their circumstances have changed are encouraged to move on to make room for
others.
Pita Paraone: Will those initiatives be further enhanced by the Government allowing existing State house tenants to buy
their homes and the Government using the proceeds from those sales to build further State houses, as some State houses
are believed to be valued at in excess of $600,000?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No, one of the problems that this Government faces is that the National Government sold 11,500 of
them. We have a large waiting list. While this year we will be experimenting with encouraging people into homeownership
through the mortgage insurance scheme, we are not selling houses at this time.
Sue Bradford: Can the Minister give any indication of what percentage of the Budget allocation for third sector housing
will actually go to not-for-profit or community-sector housing, as opposed to local government housing, and will groups
like the Cooperative Housing Association of Aotearoa New Zealand be assisted further than they have been in the past in
their bid to help with housing in very low socio-economic areas?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I would hope that about 50:50 of the new money that has been allocated would go between local
government and third sector groups. In relation to a specific organisation like the one that the member mentioned, I
hope that they are able to work in a more relevant way for them and that they are able to build their houses, but I
could not guarantee an individual provider getting money at this time.
Questions for Oral Answer
Immigrants—Qualifications
5. DAIL JONES (NZ First), on behalf of Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Is she
satisfied that immigrants entering New Zealand have legitimate and sufficiently comparable qualifications for which they
are granted entry upon?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration): I am largely satisfied because applicants are required to produce original
or certified copies of their qualifications. Of course, however, there are occasions when fraud is involved and steps
are taken to both identify and address those.
Dail Jones: Why is it then that we are hearing from employers and employment agencies who are exasperated with the time
and money wasted hiring immigrants who claim to have a sufficient level of experience and qualifications to work in a
particular occupation, only to find out that they are far from the desired standard for the job, and is this not a
serious failure of the Immigration Service, which is allowing thousands of people into New Zealand each year, but with
no guarantee they are suitable to settle in, work in, and contribute to New Zealand?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I lay the blame squarely at the foot of the Government that introduced a points system that took
away the emphasis on qualified job offers being part of the application for residence.
Lynne Pillay: How is the Government addressing the risk of fraudulent documents being presented to support applications
for residence?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The 2003 Budget provides for an additional $7.7 million spread over 4 years, which will strengthen
the present immigration intelligence capability and provide more resources for the investigation and prosecution of
immigration fraud.
Dail Jones: Despite all of that, why is it that the Minister continues to turn a blind eye to fraudulent and improper
activity when it is plainly clear that something unscrupulous is going on in so far as overseas authorities misleading
the New Zealand qualifications authorities concerned, for example, correspondence in regard to Indian universities that
at the end of the day prove that the so-called qualified Indian immigrant has no qualifications whatsoever?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: If that member has evidence of fraud I suggest he brings it to the attention of someone who can do
something about it. I signed a deportation order only yesterday for somebody who came into this country with fraudulent
qualifications. He came in 1995. Who is to blame?
Dail Jones: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter dated 22 May 2003 to Lindsay and Associates in regard to
such a problem, with the attached New Zealand Qualifications Authority letter of 6 May, and a qualifications and
assessment report of 6 May—two of them—for a person whose qualifications turned to dust.
Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Questions for Oral Answer
Te Mângai Pâho—Mâori Sportscasting International
6. RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) to the Minister of Mâori Affairs: Following his reply to question for written answer No. 1451
(2003), during his 20 February meeting this year when he first learnt about a Te Mângai Pâho employee having sports
trips paid by a company funded by Te Mângai Pâho, what facts were provided to him that left him “satisfied with the
board chair and chief executive of Te Mângai Pâho assurances that the matter had been handled by Te Mângai Pâho” and
what, if any, specific facts have changed?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Mâori Affairs): Facts provided by the chair and the chief executive at that time
provided assurances that action had been taken to address the matter. An external review of these matters, which
included a forensic examination of Mr Te Rangi’s computer, has brought additional information to light.
Rodney Hide: Has he compared the answers that he provided to Parliament about Te Mângai Paho’s performance with the
facts laid out in the Treasury-led review; if so, why has he not apologised to Parliament and to the public of New
Zealand for having so misled them?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: The advice given to me at that time was correct. I will apologise if need be.
Mahara Okeroa: In the light of the external review reported to Te Mângai Pâho, is the Minister satisfied that the former
chair and the chief executive acted decisively enough to address the conflict of interests?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: No. In reading the report I was disappointed that the management and the former board did not take
decisive action to put an immediate stop to the conflict of interest when it was first brought to their attention.
Hon Murray McCully: Now that the Treasury report into Te Mângai Pâho makes it clear that in answers to parliamentary
questions the Minister failed to mention six grants to Mâori Sportscasting International totalling $174,000, can he tell
the House why he has taken no steps to correct those answers as required by the Standing Order?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Following the release of the Hide-McCully report Litany of Lies, I instructed my officials to
assess those parliamentary questions in the light—
Mr SPEAKER: A comment was made—[Interruption]
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you are about to punish the Minister for quoting
the title of the report prepared by Mr Hide and Mr McCully. It was their claim that there was a litany of lies.
Mr SPEAKER: In that case I will allow the answer. I apologise. I heard a word that was out of order, but since the word
had been made by the members themselves, the word can be used.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I instructed my officials to assess those parliamentary questions in the light of the external
review report. My officials are also reviewing the other 200 parliamentary questions relevant to Te Mângai Pâho since
2003, and if it is found that corrected replies are required then I will provide them.
Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is an important matter here about the process of
parliamentary questions that Opposition MPs rely on for information. The Minister now seems to be saying that the
Standing Order is no more of an obligation than that there is a third party report that checks the accuracy of the
answers to written questions. For you to accept that as a standard would be a major shift in precisely the wrong
direction. The Minister has an obligation under the Standing Order to correct the information as soon as he is aware it
is wrong. That is a longstanding, century-old tradition of this Parliament. We will not sit here and listen to a
Minister say he will correct the answers only if the Treasury and Audit report state they are wrong. He has officials.
He has a department. He has a Standing Order that requires him to correct his answers now because he knows they are
wrong.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no change in any policy. If anything is proven, and the Minister has found out that there is an
incorrect answer, of course it is his responsibility to correct that as soon as he hears of that. However, how he does
it is his concern, as long as he does it.
Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That standard is unacceptable to the Opposition. The fact is
that the Minister knows some of those answers are wrong now. The information that a third party auditor will be getting
is the information his officials are giving that auditor. If they can give it to Treasury and the Audit Office they can
give it to the Minister. We must be able to rely on a Minister acting under the Standing Order in good faith, and if he
knows the answers are wrong he will correct them as soon as possible. Otherwise we end up waiting for months while third
parties are called in to check every written answer. That is unacceptable to this Parliament and is outside the spirit
and the letter of the Standing Orders.
Mr SPEAKER: I agree with the member. If that is the case, it is, and I would not resile from that at all. I refer the
member to Speaker’s ruling 142/3 made by my predecessor Mr Kidd: “It is incumbent on persons who mistakenly give wrong
information to the House or a committee—whether as members or witnesses—to clear it up as soon as they realise their
error. If full information is not in the member’s or witness’s hands when the error is appreciated the House or the
committee should still be alerted to the error with a promise of a full explanation when all of the information is
available.” Now I understood the Minister to say that when all the information is available he will correct any answer,
and I hope he does it immediately he knows. As far as I am concerned the member rightly suggests that if it is proven
that there is a wrong answer then it has to be corrected. There is no change at all in that, and I am certainly not
changing any policy in relation to that.
Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank you for your ruling, but I think you should go
slightly further. What we have here are answers given by the Minister that we all have to accept under the Standing
Orders are correct. I am not raising a breach of privilege because I accept his assurance that that is what he thought
was correct. We now have a Treasury report that came out at least 3 weeks ago, and when we read it we see that it
contradicts answers given in the House. How do I know that is the case? I know that because two MPs—namely, Mr Hide and
Mr McCully—have put out a press statement that points out the contradictions between written answers, oral answers and
statements in the report. From your statement it appears to me that what should have happened today is that the Minister
of Mâori Affairs should have risen in the House and said that it appeared that answers have been given that are
incorrect. It may well be that he still does not know what the right answers are. At that point he should say that when
he does know what the answers are he will let us know. However, he has told us that even though he does know that they
are wrong, he is not prepared to admit that fact until the officials, the same officials who probably misled him before,
have misled him again.
Mr SPEAKER: The member has raised a valid point of order to this extent, but once there is a realisation that there are
mistakes the Minister should say that there are mistakes. However, he has to be given an opportunity to get the correct
answer, and that he will do. I agree with the member that once mistakes are admitted they should be announced as such
and that the Minister will undertake investigation.
Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a matter on which I would like your considered ruling.
At issue here is the test of what can reasonably be expected of the Minister. In the case of some of the information the
Minister has had over 1 month on full salary, with an office of 13 people and a department of several hundred. We are
talking here about a very small pool of potential information—that is, half-a-dozen grants to a named person for a
specified task. It is not as if we are looking for a fishing expedition across the whole range of activities of
Government. I suggest that the test of reasonableness in the mind of this Parliament when it passed that Standing Order—
David Benson-Pope: Ah!
Hon Bill English: The Government senior whip might think it is joke, but we regard is as a serious issue.
Mr SPEAKER: Would the member please come to the point.
Hon Bill English: I suggest that the test of reasonableness that this Parliament had in mind when it supported that
Standing Order was that when the Minister was aware of information that was different than that that he had given the
House or to an MP through written answers, he would correct it. The standard that the Minister has suggested that he
have one 1, 2, or 3 months, or until a report is issued by a third party, we simply believe that standard is far, far
too low. He knows the information now, and he should correct it now. That is the reasonable expectation that can be
applied to this Standing Order.
Mr SPEAKER: The member has asked me for a considered ruling. That is a fair request, and I will give him one.
Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I have already said that I will give a considered ruling.
Rodney Hide: I want to add to what you might consider. I understand that the Speaker’s ruling is “as soon as possible”.
We have a situation here where a report has been produced, it has been accepted as correct by the Government. Te Puni
Kôkiri chief executive officer has apologised publicly for misleading the Minister, who then misled the House. So he has
accepted that the information he supplied to the Minister was incorrect. He has gone on the public record as saying that
the information was false, but in this House we are in the difficult situation that the answers still stand.
Mr SPEAKER: The member has virtually just repeated what other people have said. I will give a considered ruling on this
matter.
Rodney Hide: Why has the Minister not called on the police to investigate Te Mângai Pâhu spending given that Mâori
Sportscasting International paid for Mr Tame Te Rangi to fly to Rotorua for games over Labour weekend 2001, while Te
Mângai Pâho paid him to drive his own car to Rotorua and back during that same weekend, or is it a case that his
Government is simply too politically correct to have the police investigate what would appear to be an obvious fraud?
Mr SPEAKER: The first part of the question is certainly in order.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: As that members knows, we have a review and I have moved swiftly to put Mr Gardiner in to ensure
that things are tidied up. I also tell that member that out of 229 contracts let over the last 3 years, three have
fallen over. In addition, in the case of Tame Te Rangi there are a whole lot of issues around that.
Rodney Hide: What action was taken by Te Puni Kôkiri and Te Mângai Pâho over Mr Hamana Waka’s business partner, Mr Sam
Rahui’s email to a worker that explained that he could not get paid because, “We are still running on empty because Mr
Waka still has his hands in the till”, or are there two standards of accountability in this country—one for Mâori and
one for everyone else?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I answered that question earlier when that member brought up the email. In the case of the partner
it is an operational matter and I do not know the detail as well as he does. He seems to be better informed than I am.
Rodney Hide: I seek leave of the House to table an email dated 2 October 2002 that explains that Mr Waka still has his
hands in the till.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon Murray McCully: Given that the Minister’s chief executive officer has publicly admitted to the media that answers
supplied to his organisation and to the Minister, and supplied by the Minister to the House, had been incorrect, why
will the Minister not correct those statements and apologise as required by the Standing Order?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Along with the review that I have enacted, it is important that we get the response right.
Questions for Oral Answer
Reports—United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child
7. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports on the quality of life of
New Zealand children has he been informed are to be presented to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child
this week?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment): My colleague the Minister of Youth Affairs and I
have been informed that a report prepared by Action for Children and Youth Aotearoa is to be presented to the United
Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child this week. The Government has provided grants of $17,875 as a contribution
towards development and travel costs for those presenting the report in New York.
Sue Bradford: Given the Government’s support for the mission to Geneva, does the Minister stand by the Government’s
vision to end child poverty as expressed by the 2002 “agenda for children”; if so, why did he take no steps in the
Budget to allocate any further funding to alleviate child poverty?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: In the Budget I would list such things as significant investment in health, in decent affordable
housing, in early childhood education, in new jobs, in the establishment of the Families Commission, and, finally, a
whole range of policies that are working through the benefit system that will be of use to those children.
Dianne Yates: What progress has the Government made in responding to recommendations of the United Nations Commission on
the Rights of the Child?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: New Zealand is to present its next periodic report on compliance with the UN convention in September
this year. The report will address specific items such as Action to Implement a World Fit for Children outcome document
adopted by the UN General Assembly special session on children, current New Zealand reservations to the United National
Committee on the Rights of the Child, and previous recommendations to the UN committee. The report also provides an
opportunity to highlight such areas as education, health, housing, employment, and social services, where New Zealand
has acted to improve the circumstances of children and their families.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: In the light of the statement made by Alison Blaiklock, chairperson of Action for Children and Youth
Aotearoa that: “The Agenda for Children came out a year ago, but the Budget did not contain the investment to actually
implement this agenda.”, can he explain why the Budget did not contain anything to address child poverty but $34 million
for a yacht race, and in what way is that consistent with his and the Prime Minister’s involvement with the Hîkoi of
Hope, or is this just another “Mahareyism”—doing one thing in Opposition and the opposite in Government?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The Agenda for Children is a document that was produced and then sent to departments. They have been
making bids through their budget round, for their particular areas of health, education, and so on; and Mrs Blaiklock
knows that. That is the way in which this matter will be implemented.
Barbara Stewart: Can the Minister explain his reservation about implementing the recommendations contained in the UN
report, particularly the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act, and amending the Children, Young Persons, and Their
Families Act to include all those aged under 18 years, given that these recommendations have been highlighted on
previous occasions?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: There are no reservations around those issues. The Government has mapped out a programme of work in
relation to, say, section 59, which I fully endorse and have argued for—that is, we need to have an education programme
in this country in terms of alternatives to physical discipline. I think it would be premature to act now to change the
legislation, but somewhere down the track, no longer than a couple of years once that programme is in place, I think
would be the right time to move.
Hon Matt Robson: What has the Government done to address issues raised in the Action for Children and Youth Aotearoa
report?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: We have worked closely with our Progressive coalition partner—in particular, Mr Matt Robson—on these
issues, and between us we have been able to advance issues in the area of health, including low cost for children and
young people; providing decent and affordable housing; education through early childhood to tertiary education; 123,000
new jobs.
We have worked with United Future to establish the Families Commission, supported by the Progressives. We have a good
record.
Sue Bradford: What steps is the Government taking to improve the incomes of families who live in poverty, thereby
helping to redeem New Zealand’s international reputation as a great place to bring up children?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: We have done a range of things. I point to the lifting of the minimum wage, both for youth and
adults. I look at the rising wage for people who are in jobs; and, of course, 123,000 more of them are in jobs over the
last little while, because of the Government’s policies. I point to the expansion of the use of the special benefit,
which means that something like 32,000 people, compared with 7,000 when we came into power, are now receiving an extra
$40 a week. I point to things like income-related rents—the Speaker wants me to wind up, so I will.
Questions for Oral Answer
Mâori Development—Expenditure
8. Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Mâori Affairs: What has been the total
expenditure on capacity building, capacity assessment, and local level solutions grants by Te Puni Kôkiri since the
commencement of the programme formerly known as Closing the Gaps, and now referred to as reducing inequalities, and how
has this contributed towards building what he has referred to as “the strategy, structure, systems, and skills of
whânau, hapû, iwi, Mâori organisations, and Mâori communities, to control and develop their own developing, and to
achieve their own objectives”?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Mâori Affairs): I am advised that between 1 July 2000 and 21 May 2003, $6 million has
been spent on capacity assessment, $17 million on capacity building, and $5 million on local level solutions. This has
contributed directly to Mâori developing their own initiatives to achieve their own objectives.
Hon Murray McCully: Can he explain how a capacity building grant made to K__ T__ skate club, in his own electorate, for
the purchase of sausages, speed cream, holographic stickers, and something called Monkey Nuts, as well as giving the
club a koha and paying a facilitation fee, is likely to result in the building of Mâori capacity?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I can assure that person that I did not indulge in the Monkey Nuts or the sausages, and I was not
aware that that is what the grant was for. But can I say there are specific cases—and there have been 2,800
initiatives—that have been funded through this process; and there are a whole lot of good examples.
Dave Hereora: What are some key achievements for this Government in terms of whânau, hapû, iwi, and Mâori development?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: There have been many achievements. Since 1999 there has been a reduction in the rate of Mâori
unemployment from 18 percent to 10.5 percent; an 18 percent increase in participation of Mâori in early childhood; an
increase in Mâori teachers; a major reduction in the suspension of Mâori students from school, and this is accelerating
faster than non-Mâori students; and improvements to access by Mâori to better housing and health care. The list goes on
and on. However, when the member opposite was in Government he did nothing.
Hon Brian Donnelly: Can the Minister confirm that the money for Mâori capacity building was first appropriated through
the 1999 Budget as a $15 million sop to Tau Henare and his Mauri Pacific lot, and that when Labour took office not only
was the money untouched but no decisions had been made on how that money was to be spent?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: No, I cannot.
Hon Murray McCully: Could the Minister tell the House how funding a trip to the South Island for kûia and kaumâtua, with
the objective of providing “a range of mentally and socially stimulating activities with recreational therapeutic
benefits for the elderly”, could possibly qualify for a capacity assessment grant, and how this has contributed to
building Mâori capacity?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I am unaware of that, but I am more than certain that I will come back with the information.
[Interruption] There have been 2,800 grants made.
Hon Murray McCully: I seek leave of the House to table two documents, both having been released by the office of the
Minister of Mâori Affairs under the Official Information Act, containing the relevant grants.
Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Questions for Oral Answer
Legislation—Guardianship and Care of Children
9. TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Associate Minister of Justice: What steps is the Government
taking to address concerns about the need to modernise the legislative framework for the guardianship and care of
children?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Associate Minister of Justice): Today I have tabled the Care of Children Bill, which repeals the
Guardianship Act and removes the inappropriate language of “custody” and “access” orders, referring instead to
“parenting” orders covering day-to-day care and contact, and will shift the focus from parental “rights” to parental
“responsibilities”.
Tim Barnett: Does the legislation provide for shared parenting arrangements?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: As the words “shared parenting” imply, such arrangements must be by agreement. They cannot be
imposed. I am confident that the win-lose mentality around custody and access will diminish once this law is passed, as
it provides for both parents having ongoing guardianship responsibilities, regardless of which parent the child is
living with.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Noting the injustice of parents having to fight for years for custody of their own children when
there is no question of neglect or abuse, the injustice of the Government providing legal aid for persons stopping
parents who are responsible from having access to their own children, and the injustice of parents having to pay child
support, and taxpayers have to pay for the domestic purposes benefit for a person when parents are both able and capable
of caring for their children, what is in this bill to strengthen the rights of responsible parents to raise their own
children?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I should point out to the member that not one of the three examples that he has used is covered by
my delegation as Associate Minister of Justice. They all relate to different portfolios.
Dail Jones: Why does this modern approach include the granting of a parental order, currently called a custody order, to
the homosexual or lesbian partner of one parent of a child, making it even more difficult for the other heterosexual
parent of the child and bringing three parents into the court case, as envisaged by clause 43(1)(c) of the bill; and has
the United Future party indicated its support for this bill increasing the rights of homosexuals and lesbians?
Mr SPEAKER: The United Future party can speak for itself. The Minister can answer the first two parts of the question.
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: What the bill is attempting to address are some anomalies that have existed in respect of
discriminatory provisions in the existing law. These are clarified in the law. Both parents will be permitted to jointly
appoint a new partner as an additional guardian, and the sex of the partner that is so appointed will be irrelevant.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want you to reflect on the answer that was provided by the
Minister in response to my question. She said that it was outside her responsibilities to answer for any part of the
questions I raised about parents having custody of their own children, about parents being able to have rights, as
responsible parents, for the raising of their own children. The Minister’s response was that she did not have
responsibility for any of that, yet she has responsibility for a bill, tabled in her name, that covers all those very
issues today. I think that I am deserving of a reasonable answer to the question I raised.
Mr SPEAKER: No, that is her answer, and she is entitled to stand by it.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A member has to give an answer—
Mr SPEAKER: The member did.
Gerry Brownlee: —and it must be given consistently in the public good. How can it be in the public good for a Minister
to table a bill that deals with the very responsibilities that Dr Smith questioned on, then give an answer saying: “I’m
not responsible for these things.”? We have to have some standards, surely.
Mr SPEAKER: We do, and the Minister is entitled to say that she has no responsibility for a particular area, and that is
the end of the matter.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: But she does have responsibility.
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister has given an answer, and that answer stands until it is proven that a mistake has been made.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the Minister’s name we have a Care of Children Bill. What is
in that bill goes to the core of the issues that I raised in my original question. For the Minister to say that she has
no responsibility for what the bill says in that regard, or for my question—which asked what is in the Care for Children
Bill to strengthen the rights of responsible parents to raise their own children—is not acceptable. I do not think it is
acceptable for the Minister to say that she has no responsibility for those things even though they are in the bill.
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: There were three issues that the member raised. He raised the issue of delays in the Family Court.
He raised issues relating to child support, and he raised the issue of eligibility for the domestic purposes benefit. I
correctly pointed out that none of those three aspects of the law is covered in this delegation.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to re-ask my question so that I might have an answer, because those issues are
important.
Mr SPEAKER: I think that is reasonable. I presume that there is no objection. He can do so.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Noting the injustice of parents having to fight for years for the custody of their own children when
there is no question of neglect or abuse, what is in the Care of Children Bill to strengthen the rights of responsible
parents to be able to raise their own children?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: This legislation is getting away from the language of parents having rights. Parents have
responsibilities towards their children.
Questions for Oral Answer
Parole—Paedophiles
10. MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) to the Minister of Corrections: Can he give an assurance that parole conditions for
convicted paedophiles are sufficient to protect the community and help them to seek treatment?
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections): It is not possible to give an absolute assurance that offenders will not
reoffend. However, I can give an assurance that under the Parole Act the New Zealand Parole Board is required to give
paramount consideration to protecting public safety. In addition, the Parole Board can set conditions for any release,
including appropriate treatment.
Marc Alexander: Does the Minister agree that the real issue is the Parole Board is not ensuring that offenders meet the
conditions imposed, such as a recent Auckland case when a paedophile was released to his family home, where a young
teenager lived and his victim often visited, to be supported by his mentally unstable mother and two family members who
also had child sex convictions, when this is direct contravention of one of his parole conditions, not to mention any
notion of common sense?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: The member is asking about the Parole Board’s actions. It is, of course, an independent agency and it
sets the conditions according to the circumstances of the case.
Martin Gallagher: Is the Government considering any changes to the law in relation to the monitoring of child sex
offenders?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: Yes. The Minister of Justice has announced that the Government will be introducing an extended
supervision regime to apply to those child sex offenders who might not be sentenced to preventive detention. The new
proposal would see those offenders subject to up to 10 years of supervision after their release from prison.
Ron Mark: Does it not concern this Minister that we now have in this country a situation where people who display sexual
deviancies as a result of their mental or intellectual disabilities are put in the community as normal people, are then
found to be offenders, are prosecuted and convicted, then end up in his jails as his responsibility?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: Yes, that is of concern, and that is one of the issues I intend to address.
Marc Alexander: How can the Minister give an assurance that paedophiles will undergo treatment when programmes like Safe
have refused to treat a number of offenders because they have been released into situations that put them at risk of
reoffending, such as, for example, the man who was paroled to live in a house opposite the park where he molested his
victim?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: The Parole Board set those conditions, and then they are looked into and overseen by the probation
service.
Marc Alexander: Can the Minister guarantee that supervision of offenders will not be progressively eased, as occurred in
the case of Barry Alan Ryder, when from July last year he was left alone for short periods, allowing him to reoffend in
December and ruin a few more young lives?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: That person was on parole, as the member knows. There was a severe degree of supervision—24 hours. It
was relaxed, as the member rightly says, and, of course, these are the issues that we are trying to address now, looking
particularly at extended supervision regimes.
Marc Alexander: Will the Government consider the compulsory naming of convicted paedophiles on their release, rather
than having to ask their permission, so that the finger of suspicion is not pointed at innocent citizens who move into
the district at the same time?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: I had considered that, but if the member wants to put it down as a separate question I am prepared to
answer it.
Marc Alexander: What faith does the Minister have in the effectiveness of treatment programmes and supervision for
paedophiles when last year Kevin Arthur Thompson was convicted of indecently assaulting a 6-year-old child despite
supervision and completion of the Kia Marama treatment programme?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: As I indicated at the start, there can be no absolute assurances that offenders will not reoffend.
However, I am advised that the Kia Marama programme has a very high success rate with young sex offenders in particular.
Questions for Oral Answer
Petroleum Exploration—Canterbury Basin
11. CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) to the Associate Minister of Energy: What bids has he received for the
Canterbury Basin petroleum exploration blocks?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy): The Government has received quality bids from four explorers in the
latest permit bidding round. The area covered by those applications equates to approximately 18,000 square kilometres of
between 7,000 square kilometres of offshore area up for tender. The bidders are drawn from New Zealand, Australian, and
North American based petroleum companies.
Clayton Cosgrove: What other opportunities are there for petroleum exploration this year for both international and
local investors?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN28Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I recently announced a bidding round over 17 blocks in offshore Taranaki,
north Taranaki, and onshore in Taranaki. The offshore area is situated amongst the most promising exploration theatre in
New Zealand for large oil and gas accumulations. Currently, the deep-water Taranaki basin bidding round is also open for
tender.
Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm to the House that five licences were up for grabs in the Canterbury Basin, that
he has received bids on only two of them, and the reason that the onshore licences have not been bid on is that
explorers find the minefield of the Resource Management Act is just too difficult to contemplate taking up those
licences?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN28Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: Certainly, the member has put an interesting twist on that. However, I will
say that the most promising areas have been bid for, and we were not at all disappointed with that result. Secondly, it
is not the issue of the resource consents and so on that is the problem at all. It is simply the fact that New Zealand
has a regime that is well understood by the oil industry, and I think it is acting accordingly. We have a very promising
future ahead, and I am doing my very best to ensure that that happens. I would hope for some encouragement, rather than
discouragement, from the member opposite.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does he think that all this interest is because the Government has just allocated $21 million to
oil and gas exploration by geological and nuclear sciences as a direct subsidy to the petroleum industry, and why has
the Government not provided at least the same sum to renewable energy industries so that wind, solar, and biomass can
compete without penalty with fossil fuels?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN28Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: First, I would note the support from the Greens Party and from Ms Fitzsimons
herself for continuing gas and oil exploration. As she has rightly said, it would be useful to have such finds as we
move away from fossil fuels to renewable resources. But to answer the point made by her, I point out that the Government
has, indeed, a significant programme of encouraging renewable resources as well. I think that both of those things are
possible to do at the same time. In the short term we certainly need gas.
Questions for Oral Answer
Family Courts—Reviews
12. Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) to the Associate Minister of Justice: Does she intend to review the secrecy provisions of
the Family Court system; if not, why not?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Associate Minister of Justice): Yes. Today I introduced the Care of Children Bill that will permit
wider reporting of guardianship proceedings in the Family Courts so long as identifying information about the parties
and children involved is not disclosed. The Law Commission is also reviewing that matter and released the second
discussion document late last year called Seeking Solutions: Options for Change to the New Zealand Court System, which
has raised this very issue.
Dr Muriel Newman: Can the Minister confirm whether she intends to open up New Zealand’s Family Court properly, whereas
when Australia opened up its Family Court it had a massive decrease in litigation; mediation was seen to be a better and
more cost-effective option, and there was a dramatic fall-off in false allegations—all extremely positive outcomes to
families and children, and where is the drawback in properly opening up the Family Court?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The provision within the guardianship bill relates to all courts. It does not relate just to Family
Court proceedings. An important balance has to be sought to be met in respect of the interests of privacy, and taking
into account that often children are involved.
Russell Fairbrother: Why are the proceedings of the Family Court held in private?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Many Family Court proceedings involve highly personal issues. The Law Commission discussion document
makes the point that many family matters involve highly personal or embarrassing facts. Therefore, the parties have a
high privacy interest that is presumed to outweigh any public interest in openness. Children and young persons are
particularly vulnerable, and the effect of publicity can be especially harmful. Balanced against that are issues and
concerns around public confidence in the courts, which is why the Law Commission is reviewing this matter.
Richard Worth: Can the Associate Minister of Justice explain why the Solicitor-General wrote to Nelson MP Nick Smith
threatening a contempt of court prosecution for breaching the secrecy of the Family Court, when no such letter was sent
to National Radio TV3, or the Principal Family Court Judge, all of whom have also commented specifically on the case
raised by Dr Smith, and why is a member of the Opposition being singled out?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I have received no advice from the Solicitor-General on the matter. Therefore, I cannot answer the
question raised by the member. I would like to make the point though that section 27A of the Guardianship Act is very
clear about the nature of comments that can be made, and that they must be made with the leave of the court. It is very
clear in the legislation that leave has to be sought. It has also been made very clear in court cases on the subject
that neither party to family litigation to which the privacy policy applies has the right to waive privacy, although the
consent of all parties to the waiving of privacy may be a factor to be taken into account by the court. All members
should be very careful about how they express their so-called concern about constituents who they are not giving good
advice to.
Mr SPEAKER: That answer was too long.
Dr Muriel Newman: In the light of the Minister’s admission that her Government’s changes in her new bill are simply
Clayton’s changes, how can she justify the Family Court’s obsession with wielding its power in absolute secrecy, and
destroying public confidence in the court in order to hide its preferential treatment of mothers, its bias against
fathers, and the incompetence of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, and does she realise that that
obsessive secrecy serves only to protect judges, court workers, and lawyers, and not the unfortunate children and their
families who come into the clutches of the court?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The whole thrust of the Care of Children Bill is to ensure that the rights, welfare, and interests
of children are placed at the head of all decision making. It is the children’s rights and interests that matter under
that bill.
End of Questions for Oral Answer
(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)