Foreshore and Seabed—Mâori Land Court

1. Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by the statement in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet foreshore and seabed pamphlet that says that the Mâori Land Court would be able to consider fully the range of claims and could this give rise to compensation where the Government is unable to give full effect to claims without awarding title?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): I stand by the actual statement, which was a little different. The Government proposal is that if the court found it was unable to give full recognition to customary interests that it found had continued to exist since 1940, then the court would be able to alert the Government to this consequence. The Government would then discuss with those affected what steps might be taken to address the issue.

Hon Roger Sowry: In light of the Hon John Tamihere’s statement regarding customary rights to the seabed and foreshore that: “If exploration of those rights finds that they have been extinguished, then that becomes an issue for compensation.”, does this mean the Government has now given the green light for compensation claims for extinguishment of customary rights, not just extinguishment of the title; if not, why?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No. I am not aware there was ever a customary right to a freehold title.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister consider that raising compensation as an issue is simply a tactic to heighten groundless fears of a taxpayer burden, given that tangata whenua have not expressed any desire to exchange their manawhenua and kaitiakitanga for money?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Some of the tangata whenua comment has, of course, come from a quite explicitly commercial angle, while other comment has come from a sovereignty angle. A lot of the Opposition comment has just come from a desire to stir the pot.

Hon Peter Dunne: Given the absence of specific definitions of customary title, customary use, and customary access, does she have confidence that the Mâori Land Court as it stands at the moment would be able to make determinations on those points that would not cut across the Government’s policy objective of ensuring that everyone has equal and unfettered access to the seabed and foreshore?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Frankly, not at the moment, and that is why the discussion document talks about a specialist division of the Mâori Land Court and the Mâori Land Court needing to be resourced to deal with such issues.

Dail Jones: Is the Prime Minister saying from her answers, and especially from her first supplementary answer, that Mâoris who lose their customary rights will never be able to get compensation?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is not an issue of losing customary rights. The proposal is about seeing that the Mâori Land Court is not able to issue a fee simple title.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. On the face of it this may be a complex issue, but it is not that complex that the Prime Minister can avoid a very straight question, which is not what the purview of the Mâori Land Court, new and reconstructed as it might be in the future, might decide, but whether, if Mâori or iwi were to lose their customary right, they in their policy contemplate compensation. It is a totally different issue.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The Prime Minister gave an answer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, this is a very important issue. The Prime Minister may have given an answer, but she did not concentrate on the question and she failed to give the New Zealand people and this House any idea as to what the Government’s thinking is, which is the purpose of this question time.

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister addressed the question.

Hon Richard Prebble: Does the Prime Minister not accept that in a country that has the rule of law if some citizen loses a property right, then that is a matter that should be compensated by the courts, not at the arbitrary whim of the Government?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I said in answer to the first supplementary question, I am not aware there was ever a customary right to hold a freehold title.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Having the Prime Minister repeat her answer to a different question cannot in any way be regarded as an answer, especially when I am trying to get the Prime Minister to clarify. It is a very simple question, and I think the Prime Minister should answer it. Is the Government of New Zealand saying to one class of New Zealanders, because they are Mâori, that they cannot get compensated, but everyone else can?

Mr SPEAKER: That is for the Prime Minister to determine in her answer. It might not satisfy the member, but it was an answer.

Hon Roger Sowry: Was the Hon Margaret Wilson correct when she said: “If people then want compensation or want money, then I suppose that will become, as everything is, a matter of negotiation.”; if that is so, what exactly does the Government intend to compensate Mâori for?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The proposal is clear in saying that if the Mâori Land Court found that it could not give full recognition to customary interests, then the court would be able to alert the Government to this consequence. The Government would then discuss the matter on what steps might be taken. It has not drawn any firm conclusion as to what they might be. This is a highly abstract and theoretical issue at this point.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Putting aside all questions of freehold or fee simple title, and given that customary rights have to have some value otherwise the Mâori people would not be arguing for them, if they are lost to a Mâori, a hapû, or an iwi does the Government intend now, in its 6 weeks’ negotiation with Mâoridom, and apparently nobody else, to compensate them if they are lost?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: This proposal is very specifically about upholding customary rights. I might also point out to the member that the consultation period is for consultation with the whole range of interested New Zealanders, and that includes marine interests, local government, recreational interests, and any others who wish to come forward.

Hon Roger Sowry: How can she portray this issue as being “highly abstract”, to quote her words, when she has two Ministers, Margaret Wilson and John Tamihere, both on the record as saying that if the exploration of those rights finds they have been extinguished, then it becomes an issue for compensation; who is being abstract, the Prime Minister or her Ministers?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The reason for believing it is a largely abstract and theoretical issue is that the Court of Appeal judgments implied strongly that that was so.

Superannuation—Political Parties’ Views

2. DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) to the Minister of Finance: What mechanisms exist for political parties to express support for the present provisions for superannuation?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Parties can sign up to Parts 1 and 2 of the New Zealand Superannuation Act of 2001. Part 1 entrenches current entitlements, and Part 2 protects the scheme’s future viability of our New Zealand Superannuation Fund.

Darren Hughes: Which political parties have signed up to protect present provisions for superannuation?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Labour Party, the Progressive party, and United Future have signed up to both parts. The Greens have signed up to Part 1, the current entitlements. The oddest response was from the National Party, which took 9 months to respond and then had no position.

Dr Don Brash: Is it true that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund will, even if it earns the unrealistically high rate of 9 percent per annum, contribute only $1 in $7 towards the cost of New Zealand superannuation during the years in which it is being drawn down, and is this why, while the Government has tried to create the illusion that it can maintain the current parameters of the scheme for ever, the Minister himself said, on 28 October 2000: “We recognise that changes in life expectancy and medical science may lead some future Government to consider raising the age of eligibility above 65.”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In answer to the first part of the question, no. Even if that were true, without the fund it would still mean a cut equivalent to more than $50 a week for a married couple, which one has to assume is National Party policy.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the two answers to those questions Dr Cullen has concluded by offering an opinion about National Party policy. Both of them are assumptions. They are, at least, _________

in their nature and quite outside the Standing Orders. He should be asked to withdraw those remarks.

Mr SPEAKER: If I had to make people withdraw every time they make a comment about an opinion or anything, I would be doing it on every question. The member is correct about the second question, and the Minister should not have made that comment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that New Zealand First would not sign up to either Part 1 or Part 2 because the entitlements were too small, we do not condone an investment structure that sends $3.2 billion off shore and denudes our economy of much-needed infrastructural investment, and that there was not serious potential, as there should have been in the Act, to convert balances into individual retirement accounts; a very enlightened position?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I cannot. In a very polite response from the member, he indicated there were aspects of Parts 1 and 2 that New Zealand First did not agree with, and therefore did not wish to be added to schedule 4. I thank him for clarification on those matters.

Gordon Copeland: Is the Minister able to advise the House in accordance with the responses received to his invitation to parties considering whether they would sign up to Part 1 and Part 2, in relation to Part 2 the formation of the Superannuation Fund to pre-fund future superannuation obligations, have any parties, in particular National, New Zealand First, ACT, or the Greens, given any indication of whether they will continue with the fund, wind it up, or if they are going to wind it up, what alternative would they suggest?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Certainly the Greens have indicated that they would wind up the fund and, I think, pay off debt, or possibly build more roads if we are really lucky in that regard.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point is actually the opposite of Mr Brownlee’s. I do protest—there has been no comment made about the ACT party. We did not agree with any of it; we did not agree with the fund, did not agree whether it is sustainable, and we are the only party that can do arithmetic.

Mr SPEAKER: That is, as usual, not a point of order.

Peter Brown: Noting those answers will the Minister advise the House whether he is receptive at all to the Superannuation Fund, or part of it, being invested in our infrastructure, namely roading, instead of us having to borrow off shore or invoke road tolls or such like on the public; will he give us his view, and if his view is positive will he recommend it to the guardians?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If the member was to use the fund to invest in roads and not to have tolls it is hard to see what the purpose of the fund would be because there would be no future income stream.

David Benson-Pope: What do the responses detailed earlier mean for the security of superannuation provision into the future?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think it is now much clearer that the provision of an adequate income into retirement depends upon maintaining a Labour-led, centre-left Government. Some 2 years ago Mr English did say that he would sign up to Part 1 of the legislation, but now he seems to have done a U-turn on that particular matter.

Dr Don Brash: I seek leave of the House to table a press statement by the Minister of Finance dated 28 October 2000 in which he says that he recognises that there may need to be a change in the age of eligibility.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Genetically Engineered Sweetcorn—Prime Minister

3. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) to the Prime Minister: Did she phone her brother-in-law, Allan Hardacre, a scientist at Crop and Food Research, on or about 12 November 2000 to discuss the problem of GM contaminated corn; and did she request that the then Minister for Biosecurity, Hon Marian Hobbs, also phone him for advice at that time?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): No, and no.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Who is telling the truth, given that Mr Allan Hardacre, in a written submission to the committee, said that the Prime Minister did phone him, and, furthermore, that the Minister for Biosecurity also made her first phone call at the Prime Minister’s request?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I phoned Mr Hardacre some time over the weekend of 25 or 26 November. In further discussion with Marian Hobbs I suggested that she might find it useful to talk to him—apparently she did.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How does she reconcile her statement during the election campaign, “on the chair of the board I did not get involved”, with the fact that she twice phoned her brother-in-law, a scientist at Crop and Food Research with key contracts with the industry, that she requested that Marian Hobbs ring him to discuss the issue, and that she also requested the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet adviser, Ruth Wilkie, seek advice from him, and does she now accept that she was donkey-deep in the Government’s management of this issue?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Absolutely not. I recollect one conversation, as is in my written evidence. I did not request Mrs Hobbs or Ms Wilkie to ring the gentleman.

Hon Richard Prebble: How can the Prime Minister reconcile the answer she has just given to the House and her statements during the election campaign that she knew nothing about any cover-up, with a memo dated 8 December from Ruth Wilkie, who works in her department, to her stating: “We cannot say that we’ve reliably discovered contamination in the corn currently planted, but equally, we cannot say that we’ve completely discounted it. … The blanket ban on new organisms contained in the HSNO Act runs counter to reality. The proposed level of tolerance of .5 percent contamination being found and 99 percent confidence is very low and probably in the long term, is not sustainable.”, and does that not show that her statements during the election campaign were just not true?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Absolutely not. There was no cover-up. As Dr Prebble said in his evidence, the only advice the Prime Minister ever offered him was that if any contamination was found, the corn should be uprooted.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Noting that the Prime Minister has said that there was no cover-up, and on National Radio on 11 July 2002 she said: “I believe in total disclosure. I have nothing to hide. All Government advice will be made public.”, why was the key memo Mr Prebble has just quoted from Ruth Wilkie kept secret?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It was certainly not kept secret on my instruction. It most certainly was not. If the member wants to check that with Dr Prebble, he should ask him to return to the committee. That was not a decision taken by me, or advised by me.

Hon Richard Prebble: How does the Prime Minister reconcile that answer with the concept of ministerial responsibility, and a memo I have in my hand dated 17 July—10 days before the election—from Ruth Wilkie to Dr Mark Prebble stating: “I wish to register formally my concern I expressed on Saturday the 13th of July about the decision to withhold from public release DPMC notes to the Prime Minister on the management of potentially contaminated corn seed in December 2000. I consider that at least one of the notes filled an important gap in the paper trail.”, and is the Prime Minister saying that she takes no ministerial responsibility for what happens in her own department?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Obviously, there was a debate between Dr Prebble and Ms Wilkie. I happen to think that Ms Wilkie was right, but my advice was not sought at the time.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why should New Zealanders believe any public statement she makes of the sort: “All documents will be released.”, when the head of her own department deliberately and knowingly kept key documents secret at the most sensitive time of the electoral cycle?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That was a decision he made. He and Ms Wilkie disagreed on the matter. As I have just said, I happen to think that Ms Wilkie was right.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Prime Minister seriously expect the people of New Zealand to believe that the head of her own department would knowingly disobey her specific instructions on the most sensitive document and on the most sensitive issue, in the 2002 election, without her having any knowledge; if so, are we also expected to believe in the tooth fairy?

Mr SPEAKER: The right honourable Prime Minister can answer the first question.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I have said, that was a decision that Dr Prebble took on his own.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to consider the Hansard from the question that has just past, in the light of the evidential material that we are expected to take to the Clerk’s Office each day to get a question in. It seems to me that there is some concern around the fact that the question referred to “on or about 12 November 2000”. That had to be in there because the open question: “Did you ever phone your brother-in-law?” could not be asked. That would be a ridiculous question and Parliament should not waste its time with whether Ministers phone members of their family. To quantify it in the context of the issue, and to make it a reasonable question, a date had to be put in there. It was not unreasonable, from the papers that were released, for Dr Smith to put in “on or about 12 November”. I want to know whether you consider it reasonable for the Prime Minister to say no, but subsequently to answer another question by referring to the 26th of that month.

Mr SPEAKER: All I can say is that I have here the question as submitted. It has been changed only a little bit to put in the words “Ltd”, “then” and “Minister for Biosecurity”. Apart from that it is exactly as it was submitted. Questions have to be authenticated. Answers are a matter for Ministers, and the House decides how it reacts.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, that misses the point. Of course the question went in like that. I said that. I also said that it was reasonable for Dr Smith to do that. What I think is unreasonable is for the Prime Minister to say no to that, using up one of our questions, then come back a few moments later and say that it was a short period later. That is unacceptable. Members cannot lodge a question that does not make sense. It would have been unintelligible without an “on or about” date in it, and it would not have got through.

Mr SPEAKER: No, that is a matter for debate.

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

Mr SPEAKER: I have had this matter now.

Gerry Brownlee: I have asked you to consider something. I did not ask for an instant ruling. I have asked you to consider the Hansard when it is printed. It is an important issue. We should not have to use a supplementary question to dig out the essential answer asked in the primary question.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has asked me to consider it, and I will. I call Jeanette Fitzsimons for a supplementary question. The Greens have not had a question yet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. They may not have had a question yet, but nor have we on this issue. They can take their turn like everybody else.

Mr SPEAKER: I beg your pardon, I have made a mistake. I am sorry, the member is absolutely correct.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did the Prime Minister advise Dr Prebble not to release this information; if not, is he still employed with her department, and why?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, I did not give him that advice. He is still employed as head of Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and he is a very commendable public servant with much merit. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: There is someone about to leave. I have called only Jeanette Fitzsimons.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: In the light of her statement in July last year: “I want anyone involved to speak totally openly.”, and in the light GeneScan’s refusal to appear and give the select committee its test results on the corn on the grounds of commercial confidentiality, will the Government require GeneScan, which it now owns as a Crown entity, to appear and give the committee the information we are seeking?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is my understanding that the Government cannot require that company to appear. I understand—and this is only from what we are hearing in the public arena and what the committee is hearing—that it is citing commercial reasons. I do not believe that the Government has grounds for trying to go across that.

Hon Richard Prebble: Is the House to understand that the position is that 10 days before the election, when the Prime Minister was telling the nation that every document with regard to “corngate” had been released, the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet had chosen to keep a document secret that revealed that on 8 December she had learnt a great deal about the “corngate” matter that she had denied any knowledge of on TV3, and that her position is now that she knew nothing about that, and that Dr Prebble is a model civil servant—who presumably carries out the Prime Minister’s will—who should be recalled to the Local Government and Environment Committee, but that she will not front up to that select committee herself, even though we have all seen the British Prime Minister being willing to appear in front of a select committee; why will she not do the same?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: There must have been at least seven questions in that. Dr Prebble is a model civil servant. He took a decision on his own account. Ms Wilkie disagreed with him, and I happen to think she was right.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to, firstly, table the memo from Ruth Wilkie to the Prime Minister in respect of contaminated corn that was kept secret during the election campaign.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table a memo from Ruth Wilkie expressing serious concern that the memo was not released, against the Prime Minister’s wishes.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the Radio New Zealand transcripts where the Prime Minister said six times that there would be total openness.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the submission from Mr Allan Hardacre—

Mr SPEAKER: I understand that that is in front of a select committee. It can still be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Workplace Learning—Government Initiatives

4. Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education): What progress has the Government made in expanding programmes that support learning in the workplace?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)): Today I have announced that 63 new schools will join the Gateway programme next year, enabling their senior students to participate in structured workplace learning. That doubles the number of Gateway schools to 60 percent of all one to five decile secondary schools, meaning that we are well on the way to having all decile 1 to decile 5 schools involved. The new schools stretch from Taipa Area School in the far north to Menzies College in the deep south, and they include Rangitikei College in the member’s own area.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: How are the programmes supporting learning in the workplace progressing?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can also report strong growth in Modern Apprenticeship and industry training. The latest industry training statistics show a 10 percent increase in trainees from 30 June 2002 to 30 June 2003. That is in line with our aim to have 150,000 industry trainees in 2005 and 250,000 by 2007. We also now have 5,739 modern apprentices as at 30 June, which is a 76 percent increase from 3,254 as at 30 June last year. We are ahead of schedule to reach 6,000 Modern Apprenticeships by the end of the year, and we are well on track to meet our targets. [Interruption] The Opposition does not like good news.

Mr SPEAKER: That answer was too long.

Simon Power: Does the Minister—who was described by Metro magazine as a “bullying social engineer”—have any concerns that tertiary education providers, which are already sporting an increasingly “faint waistline” after 3 years of frozen fees, may be further constrained from providing programmes of blameless excellence for those engaged in workplace learning by the announcement last week that they will be able to increase their fees by only 5 percent next year; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The answer to that long question is no.

Ministers—Responsiveness

5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the ability of all her Ministers to be responsive to the needs of all New Zealanders?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, but that does not mean that Ministers are expected to agree with everybody all the time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that answer, does she herself hold herself in the same regard as she holds her Ministers; will she admit being the first culprit responsible for the hundreds and hundreds of victims who were infected by hepatitis C and HIV from getting unclean, unscreened bad blood when she was the Minister of Health between 1988 and 1990, or is she just washing her hands of that, as well?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Certainly not. The member will be aware that the police have just concluded a lengthy investigation following complaints being raised against two former Ministers of Health, and found that there was no case to answer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister think that that is an adequate standard of public responsiveness and duty of care, which she did owe as Minister of Health from 1988 to 1990, when hundreds of people had either truncated or miserable lives or lost their lives, and given, for example, that in Germany two people who were responsible went to prison in identical circumstances, and that the Minister of France, in identical circumstances, went before the high court; is that her idea of public responsiveness?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: There are a number of unsubstantiated allegations in that question. The only thing I have ever been guilty of with regard to duty of care is caring rather too much, being too conscientious, and working too hard.

Agriculture—Agricultural Emissions Levy

6. Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) to the Convenor, Ministerial Group on Climate Change: Is the Government reconsidering its decision to impose an $8.4 million greenhouse gas levy on dairy, sheep, beef, and deer farmers in the light of widespread protests across the country; if not, why not?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor, Ministerial Group on Climate Change): Government climate change policy exempts farmers from emissions charges on agricultural greenhouse gases that would cost them almost $1 billion per year if they were charged the same way as other industries. This exemption is on the condition that farmers fund more research into reducing their industry’s emissions, and the Government is not reconsidering that decision.

Dr Muriel Newman: Can the Minister categorically deny that he, or other Ministers, have instructed or indicated to officials that the Government wants a solution to the flatulence tax debacle, or, indeed, to reconsider it; yes or no?

Hon PETE HODGSON: We have been working with industry to avoid a levy for around 2 years. So far, we have been unsuccessful. The whole idea of the Government’s policy was that farmers would make the investment and that the levy, which is now forthcoming, would be there as a backstop.

Mark Peck: Under what circumstances would the Government reconsider the need for the agricultural emissions research levy?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The Government’s first preference has always been for voluntary industry funding for research into agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. If the agricultural sector makes its own arrangements to provide the funding needed for a serious research programme, the levy would be unnecessary.

Hon David Carter: Why did the Minister say, on 16 November 2001: “I can offer you a personal viewpoint, which is, that to tax cattle and sheep in that way is a remarkably stupid thing to do.”; what level of protest from New Zealand farmers and what level of absolute ridicule from around the world will it take for the Government to back down on the flatulence tax?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I can remind the member that that is precisely what I and many other Ministers did, which is why the Government exempted this sector—unlike any other—from a methane tax, in return for which we had anticipated a research programme to be funded by farmers with a levy mechanism to collect the money, if necessary.

Larry Baldock: Does the Government need to pass legislation to enable it to collect the greenhouse gas levy; if so, given United Future’s clear opposition to the imposition of the levy, does he have any idea which party in this House will give support for that legislation?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The Government will need to pass legislation if it is to collect a compulsory levy, and will search for like-minded parties as it approaches that decision.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Will the Minister at least be reasonable and give farmers the choice of whether to start paying the research levy now or, instead, to pay a full methane tax from 2007, like all the other emitters are being asked to do?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Those who request choice do not always request all types of choice, and that is one the farmers would reject straight away.

Hon David Carter: Does the Minister stand by his statement made to a public meeting of over 300 farmers in the Hawke’s Bay on 14 August this year; when explaining the science of global warming, he said: “I am making this up as I go along.”?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Those who choose to take a 90-minute speech and take 9 seconds from it, and fail to give any context, whether I said—[Interruption] I do think the position of the ACT party is, however, interesting, acknowledging that they have got the bus and they have got the petition and they have got the commitment from Mr Gerrard Eckhoff. That same gentleman told a group of farmers that ACT would withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol and give the sink credits back to the farmers. Members should try to work that one out.

Dr Muriel Newman: In light of the Minister’s reply, is it not now clear that he has changed his position from one of having made an effectively non-negotiable decision to one where he is now trying to find a compromise in face of massive rural protest—in other words, a complete U-turn—and why will the Minister not recover some of his credibility by coming clean, admitting it to the House right now, and apologising to rural New Zealand for the deep offence his Government has caused?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I can do no better than quote from my own press statement at the time that the Government announced its policy. Let me do so. There are only two sentences: “The Government will exempt the agricultural sector from any emissions charge or trading regime in the first commitment period, provided this sector invests in research to identify options for reducing agricultural emissions. Secondly, the Government retains the option of imposing a research levy if the research effort falls below what is required.” It has.

Hon Richard Prebble: Given the Minister’s comments about the danger of things taken out of context, I move for leave for him to read the whole press statement.

Mr SPEAKER: Sorry, the member cannot ask for leave on behalf of another member—I think he knows that—but a very good try.

Care of Children Bill—Access

7. MURRAY SMITH (United Future) to the Associate Minister of Justice: Does she agree that it is usually in the best interests and welfare of a child to have regular ongoing contact with both of its parents; if so, would she support an amendment to the Care of Children Bill to that effect?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Associate Minister of Justice): Yes I do, particularly where parents cooperate with each other, putting the best interests and welfare of the child ahead of their own interests. The Care of Children Bill is currently before the select committee, and I am looking forward to receiving the report of the committee after it has heard the submissions. I certainly would not rule out making an appropriate amendment to clause 4 of the bill.

Murray Smith: In the light of the Minister’s positive response to this proposal by United Future, is she also prepared to reconsider the provisions of clause 17(2) of the Care of Children Bill to remove reference to “the father of a child” as constituting a reference to the same-sex de facto partner of a mother, as requested by United Future?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes. As I said when I introduced the bill, I am certainly happy to look at completely rewriting it. Under the circumstances, I am also completely happy to consider completely removing it.

Richard Worth: Is it an appropriate outcome for parents who are fit and proper parents to be denied custody of their child in favour of a third party, yet, under the present legislation, still be required to pay child support; if so, why, in the context of the international Convention on the Rights of the Child?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: There are a number of reasons that ongoing contact is actually not in the best interests of the child. There could be examples of incest. There could be examples of abuse. There could be examples of failure to provide proper care for children. There could be mental health issues. I am sure the member is not referring to a particular individual case, because that would be entirely inappropriate in the House.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Given that the Care of Children Bill, even if rewritten, will ensure that a lesbian partner will be considered a parent—even though the biological father will not necessarily be so—will the effect of the proposed United Future amendment referred to in the substantive question ensure that regular, ongoing contact will be available for children with both of their lesbian parents?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: No, I think that the member completely misunderstands the nature of the question that was put. The question related to the principles that would govern decisions that, under the legislation, have to be in the best interests and welfare of the child. I think the member is confusing about three different aspects of the legislation.

Metiria Turei: Is the Minister aware of the letter from Green Party MP Sue Kedgley, dated 3 May 2000, to the Hon Minister Margaret Wilson, which requests that a principle of frequent and continuing contact with both parents be included in the review of the Guardianship Act; and can she confirm that this issue has been raised by the Green Party with her office in subsequent meetings?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes, I can confirm both of those matters, but I think it is very important that, as we consider this legislation when it comes back to the House, it must be from the perspective of the best interests and welfare of children—not parental rights, but children’s rights.

Tim Barnett: How does the Care of Children Bill encourage an ongoing role for both parents?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The Care of Children Bill contains provisions that emphasise the continuing guardianship role of both parents in a child’s life, regardless of whom the child lives with. It requires the Family Court to consider contact arrangements where a parent will not have day-to-day care of a child. It provides funding for formal, supervised contact sessions where a parent has been violent, and provides realistic enforcement measures to make the parenting orders work.

Murray Smith: Does the Minister agree that in the best interests and welfare of the child, the Care of Children Bill should address the issue of whether the granting of guardianship to a non-parent spouse or partner should be subject to that spouse’s or partner’s relationship with a custodial parent having met a minimum stability period, such as that provided for in the Property (Relationships) Act?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: That would mean that there would be two separate considerations given to a child who was born to a married couple who, for example had married within a week of meeting each other, and a different standard applied to those who had been the subject of separation. Therefore, I think it is very important that people realise there are consequences beyond those that have an appearance of relating only to that particular matter. It is very important that on the question of guardianship rights and responsibilities the best interests and welfare of the children come first.

Dr Muriel Newman: Does the Minister agree that present family law is tilted so heavily against fathers that literally tens of thousands of children are now totally alienated from their fathers; if so, will she support my amendment to the Care of Children Bill to introduce shared parenting?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: No, and no.

Question No. 8 to Minister

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays): In view of the absence of the Minister of Mâori Affairs, to whom the question is addressed, I seek leave of the House to defer this question until the next sitting day.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to defer. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to seek your guidance on this matter. I asked a very similar question to the same Minister yesterday. As a courtesy to the Minister, I sought leave to defer it. That leave was denied. I have been denied that leave again today. I do understand the Standing Orders on this question, but want your guidance. I know that the Minister has no public engagements today. I want to say to you that there is a certain point where Opposition members have to conclude that there is a deliberate strategy being engaged in to shield an incompetent Minister from the scrutiny of the House at question time. When that happens I suggest to you that there must be some recourse for members on this side. To have a strategy of that sort is to show contempt for Parliament and contempt for question time.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): The member, of course, has an obvious remedy in not asking the question today, but I can make two further points. Firstly, the Minister is not here. He is absent, and he is not well. Secondly, two Ministers have responsibility for the Mâori Television Service, and I am the other Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Please ask the question.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I have ruled on the point of order. [Interruption] Well, the member can speak very briefly.

RODNEY HIDE: We have to put our questions in by mid-morning. It is one of the difficulties that we constantly have. We in the ACT party have one question and quite often —I am sure it is the same for the other political parties—we have a question that is specific to a particular Minister who has been dealing with the issue. We get another Minister and they say that they do not know. I was wondering whether it would be a helpful innovation to Parliament if it could be signalled, in fact—whether the Minister or the Prime Minister—who will be in the House at 2 o’clock, particularly given that we have such absences.

Mr SPEAKER: The member can make that submission to the Standing Orders Committee. I am bound by the current orders. I just say, in ruling on the point, that there is no longer any leave of absence provisions in our Standing Orders. That is something that the member might want to make a submission on. I have no role in ensuring attendance; I have a role in ensuring that the question will be answered by a Minister of the Crown.

Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise two issues. Firstly, in putting this question down, the Opposition was aware that the Minister was interviewed on radio this morning, so the Opposition certainly had no inclination that the Minister would not be able—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: If I see anybody making an interjection they will leave the Chamber, on the spot.

Hon ROGER SOWRY: The Opposition was aware that the Minister was interviewed this morning on the radio. We heard that interview, so there was no inclination that he would not be here today. The second point I want to raise is the issue that Dr Cullen raises. He said in his comments that the member who had the question down simply had as an option to not ask the question today, because the Minister is not here today. That is an option, and that is why leave was sought to delay the question until the Minister was here. It is no good the Deputy Prime Minister being part of denying the ability of the Opposition to ask a question of a particular Minister and then getting up by way of point of order—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Mr Swain will leave the Chamber. He interjected. Please carry on.

Hon Paul Swain withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon ROGER SOWRY: —and then saying that the way to deal with this is to not ask the question today. The Opposition and I seek leave again—following Dr Cullen’s invitation that we should ask it when the Minister is here—to not ask the question today, and to ask it when the Minister next returns to the Chamber. We are happy to wait, if it does not get put down tomorrow.

Mr SPEAKER: I am prepared to put the leave question again. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. Would the member please ask the question. I then call question No. 9, Sue Kedgley.

GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that you have now moved on to question No. 9. That was the deliberate intent of the Opposition. I want to make the point that in so much as order in the House is your preserve, it is a point of order to point out the deep disappointment that the Opposition has that the Government continues to shield incompetent Ministers and not put them through the proper scrutiny that this process is supposed to encourage.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I am not prepared to accept that statement from the member. That is an outrageous statement.

Gerry Brownlee: It’s true!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, it is not true at all. Mr Horomia is not well. The fact that he can carry out a radio interview does not mean that he can come to this building to participate in normal work. Some day that member will be in that position as well, and I hope some good grace is shown to him.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Mr Cullen can rise to his feet in a sense of outrageous anger, but he owed the Opposition some openness and candidness when he knew that the Minister would not be available for that reason, and he should have had the decency to advise the Opposition so it could have rephrased the question to someone else.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did do that when he was asked—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, he didn’t.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, he did. I heard him say it on a point of order.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Now?

Mr SPEAKER: No, not just then, but about 5 minutes ago. I invite the member to look at the transcript.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He should have had the decency to advise the Opposition then and not be outraged now.

Mr SPEAKER: I cannot be asked to rule on why a member, Minister or back-bencher is not present in the Chamber. That is not part of my role. My role is to ensure that when a question is requested to be answered by a Minister, it is answered by a Minister.

Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to make the point that in your ruling you said that the Deputy Prime Minister made the offer that the question could be rephrased. In fact, he made two offers. He offered that the question could not be asked, which is what has happened, and put down for when the Minister is here. We sought leave twice for that to occur, and both times this Deputy Prime Minister objected. It is a bit disingenuous of him to stand up in the House and say that we could put it down when he is here. The Government will not say when the Minister will be here. It is an issue the Government knows the Minister is in some difficulty on. The Government will not say when he is here, and it will not let the question be held over until he can answer it.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I did not say that. I said the member did not need to ask the question, which he did not. He is now free to submit the question as one of tomorrow’s questions. I am afraid I cannot give the member an indication as to when the Minister will be here. He will be here—

Hon Roger Sowry: Aw!

Mr SPEAKER: The member interjected during a point of order. By rights he should be asked to leave the Chamber. On this occasion, provided he makes no further comment, I will allow the Deputy Prime Minister to continue.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Minister is not well. He will return as soon as he can. That may well be tomorrow, but I cannot give that guarantee. I point out again that on this particular issue it is not a matter of any old, other Minister being prepared to answer it. I am the other Minister with statutory responsibility for the Mâori Television Service, and I am perfectly competent to answer this question.

GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam): Strong condemnation was directed in my direction by the Deputy Prime Minister at the statement I made at the conclusion of question No. 8 as we moved towards question No. 9. I want to make the point that members of this House are extremely considerate to other members who suffer illness or other personal circumstances that keep them from this House. If the Minister of Mâori Affairs is not able to be here to answer a question because he is ill, that surely raises the question who the Acting Minister is at the present time, whether the warrant has been transferred, and if it has, why we have not been told. Other than that, it is perfectly reasonable for us to assume that if we put a question down to a Minister with a ministerial responsibility that Minister will be here to answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister indicated that he was the other Minister responsible for it, and he was prepared to do so. I heard Dr Cullen say that twice.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think there is a way through this. Accepting Dr Cullen’s point that the Minister is unwell, and that he is not sure when he will be fit enough to return, it may save Opposition parties their questions, given that there are some serious questions for the Minister, if the Labour Party whip could undertake, say by 9.30, to alert the other parties’ whips that the Minister of Mâori Affairs will be well and in the House.

Mr SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with me. It is to do with members.

GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have just told us that there were two Ministers who could answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I was told by the Minister.

GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, you were told that, and you confirmed it by instructing the House as such. If that is the case, why was the question not transferred to the other Minister this morning, so that we would have known at 11 o’clock who was going to be answering it?

Mr SPEAKER: Because any Minister can answer any question on anyone else’s behalf.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do appreciate that this is not a matter within your capacity, but I do think that the point that has been raised is a reasonable one. I wish the Minister of Mâori Affairs a rapid recovery, but when MPs listen to the Minister speaking on the radio and then condemned because he is ill, that causes some trouble. You can see that the question has not been asked. I think it is reasonable for the Leader of the House to say that he will ensure an email is put around before 10 o’clock, when questions have to go in, to let us know whether the Minister of Mâori Affairs, regardless of whether we have heard him on radio, will be able to appear in the House.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for the way in which he phrased that point of order. Of course it is up to the Government to do that, if it wishes.

Infant Formula—Genetic Modification

9. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister for Food Safety: Can she tell New Zealand parents the names of the four unidentified infant formula that tested positive for genetically modified soy in the recent New Zealand Food Safety Authority report on food produced using gene technology; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety): I do not have the names of these products. The review was one of the routine audits carried out by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, and as the genetic modification (GM) found was approved by Food Standards Australia New Zealand and was also well below the 1 percent threshold that is provided in the standard relating to GM labelling for unintentional presence, the product did not break the law.

Sue Kedgley: Surely parents feeding their babies soy infant formula have a right to know whether their infant formula contains unlabelled genetically engineered (GE) soy, especially since GE soy has never been tested on humans, or for its long-term health effects?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The food standard that is in place is to do with labelling. It is not to do with safety. There are no GM products in New Zealand that have not been approved by Food Standards Australia New Zealand.

Steve Chadwick: What action does the New Zealand Food Safety Authority take regarding compliance failure?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The action it takes is to identify what products do not comply. The recent review found that only two products of the 117 tested did not comply. Both of them were making a GE-free claim. One of these was a tofu vegetarian sausage, sold in an organic shop, and the other was a smoked sausage, which also claimed it was GE free. Both cases have been referred to the Commerce Commission for consideration under the Fair Trading Act.

Sue Kedgley: Does she agree that the findings of the food safety audit, that more than half of the importers and manufacturers who were surveyed did not have current information on the GE status of their food, and that 68 percent of importers did not even have verifications and systems in place to confirm the GE status of food, suggest that the GE food labelling system is a shambles, and what is she doing to fix it?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I have told that member, but she apparently has not heard, that the food labelling regime was put in place by Food Standards Australia New Zealand in 2000. Part of that was to review it after 3 years. The review was announced in August. I know that the member got a copy of the press release, and probably the terms of reference. That labelling regime is now being reviewed. It was the first of its type in the world. We are now looking to see whether we need to change it, to bring it into line with any other labelling regimes in other parts of the world.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is the Minister planning to further review the food safety in other ingested-substances regulations in order to assert whether the ingestion of alcohol or food of a particular sort at a dinner with the Hon Richard Prebble last night was responsible for the headache that Bill English has today?

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: And now he will leave the Chamber.

Hon Trevor Mallard withdrew from the Chamber.

Sue Kedgley: If more than half of the importers and manufacturers in New Zealand do not have current information on the GE status of their foods, or verification systems in place, how can we be sure that our foods are correctly labelled, with regard to GE; why on earth is the food safety agency budget for monitoring GM food being slashed by more than two-thirds in this financial year; and, how will the Minister ensure compliance on a $50,000 budget?

Hon ANNETTE KING: We have, for the first time, put in place surveillance and monitoring of the GM labelling regime. That is why we have just carried out an audit. That is how we can tell whether foods do comply. They have a spot check. There are some mandatory checks. That was never done in New Zealand, although we have had food with GM product in it for around 10 years.

Immigration—Tax Revenue

10. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Has she received any reports from the Minister of Revenue as to the effects of immigration on tax revenue?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration): No.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is this Minister telling me that despite the fact that the Inland Revenue Department is aware of up to $30 million a year tax fraud in the horticultural industry from immigrant labour and foreign fly-by-night employee organisers, she has never received any report whatsoever from the Minister of Revenue on this very serious fraud of the New Zealand taxpayer?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I am not aware of the Inland Revenue Department being aware of any of that. I would like to see some evidence, for once, from that member.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is she always the last person to know? The Inland Revenue Department advised the New Zealand Fruitgrowers Federation at the Te Puke February meeting of the Fruitgrowers Federation when—[Interruption] Is this a laughing matter? The biggest laugh in this House is this incompetent Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: I am warning members. I want the member to start his question again, and I ask the senior Government whip to make sure that his Ministers keep quiet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Minister always the last one to know about a serious issue in her portfolio, when the Inland Revenue Department—as reported by Andrew Fenton, chairman of the board of Satara and the Bay of Plenty Fruitgrowers representative on the New Zealand Fruitgrowers Federation—made a presentation at the New Zealand Fruitgrowers Federation meeting in February and pointed out the massive losses taking place in respect of collections because of fraud on the Inland Revenue occasioned by immigrants and organisers of foreign workers?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I am aware of the shortcomings of people working illegally in this country, and I do know a lot about that. That is why this Government acted to change the law to bring in a strict liability offence for employers in that regard.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member’s supplementary questions have expired.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: As $30 million per annum is involved, and that is a terribly serious matter, I seek leave to ask this Minister a further question.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.

Pacific Island Forum—Auckland Meeting

11. LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (NZ Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: What were the major issues under discussion at the Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Auckland last week, and what outcomes are expected from those discussions?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): Pacific leaders focused their discussions on regional security, environmental concerns, trade, travel, health, and good governance. They also elected a new forum secretary-general and agreed to a review of the secretariat. Among the key initiatives to emerge was a scoping study on aviation and shipping, and a regional policing initiative to strengthen police training, competency, standards, and cooperation across the region.

Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: How will the police training initiative impact on promoting stability in the region, and what steps were taken to deal with problems of insecurity in the region?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The police training initiative aims to improve police skills and competency, raise standards in ethics, and facilitate cooperation between police forces across the region. It will involve training of up to 900 police officers a year, and will be funded by Australia and New Zealand. Other security initiatives included the full endorsement of the regional assistance mission in the Solomons, and further encouragement to countries to enact and implement counter-terrorism and law enforcement legislation.

Keith Locke: What initiatives will the Minister be encouraging the forum secretariat to take on West Papua in the light of the concern expressed in the final communiqué of the forum that the special autonomy for West Papua is not being fully implemented, and there is continuing human rights abuse and continuing violence, unfortunately illustrated in this morning’s Dominion Post, which reported the killing of three West Papuans?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The forum did a number of things on West Papua. It reiterated the support for special autonomy as the most realistic way of getting a peaceful resolution of the situation there. The forum urged Indonesia to promulgate the necessary regulations for that to happen, and to take other steps. Members expressed concern about the continuing violence and abuse of human rights, and called Indonesia to bring to justice the perpetrators of those human rights abuses. That message was translated directly by me in the post-forum dialogue to Hassan Wirajuda, the Indonesian foreign Minister, who attended the post-forum dialogue talks.

Hon Peter Dunne: In view of reports emanating from the forum that a number of the proposals advanced by the Australians wee not well received by forum members, can the Minister indicate whether that lack of good reception was due to the fact that the proposals were being advanced by Australia or due to the proposals themselves; if it was the latter, can he indicate what steps New Zealand might be prepared to take in picking up that cause?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I think the Prime Minister indicated that New Zealand played a very important role as a bridge between the aspiration of the Australians and the smaller Pacific Island countries. I think in the end the initiatives taken by Australia were welcomed. The police training initiative, the HIV/AIDS initiative, and the aviation and shipping scoping studies are amongst those issues. Sometimes the currency issue was not raised; in fact, at the forum it was raised by the Senate committee in Australia, and I could say that that proposal had no currency at the forum at all.

Question No. 12 to Minister

GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam): I seek leave for this question to be held over to the next sitting day when the Minister of Local Government might be available.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for this question to be held over. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Local Government—Partnership with Central Government

12. GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) to the Minister of Local Government: Does he still believe “a strong and effective partnership between local and central government is critical” and how does the Hon Dr Michael Cullen’s labelling of Marlborough Mayor Tom Harrison as “racist” help his primary objective as Minister of Local Government to “strengthen that partnership through dialogue”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House), on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: Yes, strong and effective partnership between local and central government is critical. Such partnerships also allow for robust debate.

Gerry Brownlee: Since it was the Prime Minister who encouraged Tom Harrison and his council to “take some action” in relation to the foreshore and seabed court decision, what has gone wrong with the relationship between the Government and the Marlborough District Council that now sees the Government calling Mr Harrison a racist?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: After recent decisions by the district council to take a different position from Mr Harrison, relationships have improved significantly. But somebody who stopped being a member of New Zealand First, because he disliked the party’s Mâori caucus in waiting, clearly has some difficulties.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Dr Cullen might be embarrassed because he is as guilty as sin of accusing someone of being racist, when even the Mâori proponents have defended the mayor in question, but he will not malign this party with a tissue of lies.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I wish the member listened. I did not malign his party at all.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, you did.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What I said was that the person in question resigned, was turned off by the New Zealand First Party, because he referred to something he called the party’s Mâori caucus in waiting. I do not see that as a criticism of New Zealand First at all.

David Parker: How does the Government foster strong and effective partnerships with local government?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We have a regular—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you need to see where the wickets are and where that question is aimed at. Specifically, the primary question was about the comments made by a Minister, affects the portfolio areas of another Minister, and refers very specifically to Dr Cullen referring to Mr Harrison as a racist. To go as wide as asking what programmes the Government has in place to foster partnerships is surely a long way off the intent of the question.

Mr SPEAKER: No, a part of the question did refer to partnerships, and the member is asking about that.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have an extraordinarily long answer, but very briefly, the Government runs regular central/local government forums. Central government involves Local Government New Zealand in the policy development process. There are a range of joint-working groups. In particular, I mention the joint work that is going on with Auckland in terms of transport development in that city.

Gerry Brownlee: Is it fair to say that his Government’s commitment to building strong relationships with local government extends only to those local government politicians who agree with them, and if they do not agree with the Government they are likely to get labels, such as Tom Harrison being labelled a racist?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, we even have excellent relationships with Mayor John Banks of Auckland, who is not a well-known Labour Party supporter.

Rodney Hide: Has he any concerns that the term “racist” is in danger of being downgraded by this Government, which hurls the term at anyone who has a policy to do with Mâori issues and disagrees with this Government, or, indeed, is critical of this Government; and would he not think it a wise idea to keep the term “racist” for people who truly are racists?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Certainly, I do not think the term “racist” is as misused by the left as the term “politically correct” is by the right. But somebody who regards Mâori indigenous rights as a form of apartheid is certainly bordering upon being a bit strange, in the New Zealand context.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a news item dated this day where John Mitchell of Ngâti Tama iwi defends Mr Harrison and blames central government—namely, Dr Cullen.

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

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I seek leave to table a reference from the Marlborough Express yesterday where Mr Harrison was accused of racist remarks by a Mâori group.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Gerry Brownlee: Is the acting Minister of Local Government now telling us that if people want to protect what they think is theirs and claim a right to what they they believe is theirs, that is an act of apartheid; if so, is he labelling every Mâori claimant to seabed and foreshore in this country a person, or persons, or organisations that promote apartheid?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. It was Mr Harrison who made that claim.

(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

© Scoop Media