1. Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Prime Minister

2. State Housing—Unit Numbers

3. Ministerial Confidence—Prime Minister

4. Mâori Television Service—Broadcasting Communications Ltd

5. Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Environment, Minister

6. New Zealand Authors—Promotion to Children

7. Mâori Television Service—Chief Executive

8. Environmental Risk Management Authority—Review

9. Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Prime Minister

10. Tourism—Marketing, Japan

11. Ministerial Confidence—Prime Minister

12. Growth and Innovation Framework—High Tech Companies

Questions to Ministers:

1. Local Government and Environment Committee—Prime Minister

2. Local Government and Environment Committee—Genetically Modified Sweetcorn

Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Prime Minister

1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Has she seen the 17 July 2002 memo from Ruth Wilkie to Dr Mark Prebble regarding his decision to withhold from public release notes to the Prime Minister on the management of potentially contaminated corn seed, and in which Ms Wilkie states that “Mary Anne Thompson reported to you and me that the PM was prepared to have these notes released if necessary”; if so, did she have a meeting or discussion which would have led Mary Anne Thompson to make such a report?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, I have seen the memo. Dr Thompson has confirmed that no such meeting or discussion with me took place.

Hon Bill English: Did the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Heather Simpson, or chief press secretary, Mike Munro, have any knowledge of which papers were released and which papers were held back, and did they discuss this knowledge with her, given that they had played a key role in managing the outcome of the TV3 interview on “corngate”?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was a “given” at the end of that question that cannot be authenticated.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, let me put it this way. I heard the question. I will ask the Prime Minister to comment.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: My understanding is that they played no such role.

Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister give us any reason that an experienced civil servant with the reputation of Ruth Wilkie would make it up and write a memo with no basis in fact whatsoever about a meeting and a discussion that the Prime Minister says never happened?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I said, there was no meeting. Why officials wrote the memos they wrote is up to them to explain to others.

Hon Peter Dunne: At the time of the 17 July memo was the Prime Minister under the impression that all the relevant documentation had been released, given her earlier comments in that respect, and if she was not under that impression, when did she become aware for the first time that the full range of documentation had not been released?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: In the course of the campaign, when this issue arose, I made it clear that I wanted all documentation released. I assumed that instruction would have been followed; I found out in November it had not been.

Hon Richard Prebble: I would like to clarify that answer that the Prime Minister has just given to Mr Dunne. Is she asking us to believe that she was not aware that the Ruth Wilkie memo of 17 July—which contradicts the Government’s statements—was not included in the Government dump until November; even if she does expect us to believe that, why was it not released then?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am saying that I had no idea that that department had held back any information until November. My understanding was that memos were then released, in response to the request from Mr Price. I have not myself taken a detailed interest in the administration of that, but I have always asked for all the information to be released.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Prime Minister was aware that the threshold test could not be met, why did she, nevertheless, make assurances that it had been met?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I was being told in memos that there was no reliable evidence of contamination at all.

Hon Bill English: Why is it that everyone in this matter, apart from the Prime Minister, seems to be telling lies: Mary-Anne Thompson about a discussion she never had, Ruth Wilkie about a report that never existed, Mark Prebble about a decision he apparently made on his own that no one else in the Prime Minister’s department or office knew anything about; and given the Prime Minister’s track record of evasion in this House, why should we believe everyone else is lying and not her?

Mr SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition cannot suggest that a member of this House is telling a lie. I want him to stand, withdraw—

Hon Bill English: To what?

Mr SPEAKER: The last part of the question. I want him to stand, withdraw, and apologise, if he made that assertion.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify what you are pointing to as unparliamentary.

Mr SPEAKER: The last phrase.

Hon Bill English: I said the Prime Minister had a track record of evasion in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: The last phrase.

Hon Bill English: So that one was OK? The evasion was all right?

Mr SPEAKER: It was necessary to make that part of the question, but it was not specifically out of order.

Hon Bill English: OK, so which bit was out of order?

Mr SPEAKER: The last bit, which the member knows, suggested that she might have been lying.

Hon Bill English: Was it when I said that she was accusing everyone else of lying or just of her lying?

Mr SPEAKER: No. A member of this House cannot be accused of lying. He will withdraw and apologise for that comment, if he made that comment.

Hon Bill English: Speaking to the point of order, I am just having a bit of difficulty sorting out which bit is of concern to the House. I think the phrase went something like this—you can correct me if I am wrong—“given the Prime Minister’s track record of evasion in this House, why should we believe everyone else was lying and not her?”

Mr SPEAKER: Because that is an assumption that she is. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

Hon Bill English: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister can answer the rest of the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, it is a very simple question. No one is saying that the Prime Minister is lying, but people are simply saying that if everybody else is not lying, then it leaves open a huge vacuum as to what the truth is.

Mr SPEAKER: I have allowed the question. The Prime Minister will answer it.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Dr Prebble has confirmed that he did not tell me of his decision. Ms Thompson is on the public record in the Dominion Post as saying she denied discussing the notes with Ms Clark.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I ask the Prime Minister again: if she knew that the threshold test had not been met, why did she go out before and during the election assuring the public of this country, and all and sundry, that in fact there was a threshold that was met and there was no concern, which was the argument she made at the time?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The argument at the time was that there was no reliable evidence of contamination. That is clearly borne out by officials.

Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister confirm her contention that on the single biggest issue of the election campaign neither she nor her chief press secretary, Mike Munro, nor her chief of staff, Heather Simpson, knew anything about what decision had been made by Mark Prebble, a decision that was so bitterly contested in her department that a mid-level civil servant censured their own chief executive for getting it wrong; and why would we believe that no one in the Prime Minister’s office knew anything about any of that?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Because they were not told.

State Housing—Unit Numbers

2. GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Housing: How many State houses have been added to the Government’s social housing stock since 1999?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing): Since 1999 a total of 3,438 State houses have been added to Housing New Zealand Corporation’s social housing portfolio. That restores the total number of State houses to 62,750, and the total number of people housed to 179,000. Income-related rents and State house acquisitions are ensuring that more New Zealand families get decent housing and represent a major turn-round from the disastrous policies of the 1990s that saw every single house in the questioner’s electorate sold off.

Georgina Beyer: How many more State houses are planned over the next 3 to 4 years?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Housing New Zealand Corporation plans to add a further 3,400 houses to the social housing stock over the next 4 years through build, buy, or lease programmes. Of course, it will take some time to recover an appropriate level of social housing, given that 13,000 State houses—more than enough to accommodate the entire waiting list—were sold by the National Party.

Pita Paraone: How many of those State houses already allocated went to immigrant families during the period from 1999, and what is the difference as a per centum of those State houses already allocated to immigrant families against those to New Zealanders? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am giving only one warning today about interjecting while a question is being asked. That one warning is given, Mr Peters. There will be no interjections while a question is being asked, particularly by a member of that member’s party. The Minister has the right to answer, and that is the one warning today.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I respect that. However, I hope that it applies to Government Ministers and others over there who are making all sorts of noises as well in an endeavour to try to deflect a fairly asked question.

Mr SPEAKER: It does. The point is well made and that applies to every single member of this House. I have given the one and only warning.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Houses are allocated purely on the basis of need and a very small proportion goes to immigrants.

Dr Muriel Newman: What is the Minister’s response to complaints that the Government’s purchase of 1,800 houses in Auckland last year has helped to fuel the rampant house price inflation, causing Aucklanders to have to pay higher prices and higher rents, while Labour supporters enjoy nice houses at cheap rents?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: My response is that is nonsense.

David Benson-Pope: What other comments has the Minister seen on the number of State houses required?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I recently noted the following comments on State house numbers, and I quote: “The only basis on which the current policies could work would be to add a sufficient number of houses to accommodate those on the waiting list; over 11,000 in number.” Ironically, that statement came from a group who sold 13,000 State houses—the National Party.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the Minister’s last two answers. An Opposition member asked him whether it was correct that 1,800 State houses had been bought in Auckland, and the Minister said that was nonsense. I take that to mean that 1,800 have not been bought. He was then prepared to give a long statement in answer to what appeared to be a prepared patsy question to attack a previous administration. He is not prepared to answer questions about his own administration, but is wasting the House’s time criticising a previous administration.

Mr SPEAKER: If that was correct it might be valid, but the member did not just ask that in her question. There were other questions asked and the Minister did address it with an answer where he did not agree with the member.

Gordon Copeland: Is the Minister concerned that there are many families who are ineligible for social housing assistance, yet, in line with the recent ASB survey that confirms that rising house prices are forcing first homeowners out of the market, have little hope of owning their own homes; if so, does the Government intend doing something further about this, or is this ministry concerned only with the housing needs of beneficiaries?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am concerned about New Zealanders getting into social housing, and that is why I keep raising the fact that 13,000 houses were sold by the previous Government. Yes, the Government is concerned about homeownership, which is why in this Budget we have started to re-enter that issue through the mortgage insurance scheme.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How many new immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees have been given State houses, and what is the cost of that to this country?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I do not have those figures with me, but I am more than happy to pass them to the member if he would like them.

Georgina Beyer: What else is the Government doing to increase the supply of social housing?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The Government has a large number of programmes under way, as announced in the last Budget, which run from the building of houses throughout the country, and partnerships with local government and a range of community-based organisations, to the leasing of properties from people who are investing their savings in housing and passing them on to tenants. A range of those kinds of policies will result in a real improvement in social housing.

Ministerial Confidence—Prime Minister

3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in each of her Ministers?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can she have confidence in a Minister of Immigration and a Minister of Health who have allowed to come into this country, and now to clog up the wards in North Shore and Auckland hospitals, hundreds of people with Third World diseases including tuberculosis cases where the wards are busting to overflowing—and 70 percent are immigrants—and how can that be a responsible way of defending the health of the New Zealand people?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I understand it there is screening for a disease like tuberculosis. However, it is always possible that some people present false, fraudulent X-rays. I can say to the member that the Government does not tolerate that at all, and if there is any evidence that people have done such they will certainly be prosecuted.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Prime Minister make that claim when she knows full well that a great number of the Somalis, for example, never had any test given to them in the first place and were let out early, prior to having testing, on the basis that they had to be reunited with their own people? Given that there are hundreds of cases, and that we now have Third World diseases that we thought we had defeated, how is that a responsible way for a Minister of Immigration and a Minister of Health to conduct the affairs of looking after the health of this country?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Whether the rules are different for refugees I do not know. The member should ask that of the Minister of Immigration.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’m asking you.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: If the member wants an answer from me to a detailed question, he should put it on specific notice. What I can say is that TB in this country, unfortunately, has not been restricted to those coming in from other countries in the years of poverty arising from the 1991 changes that appeared in our own community.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Prime Minister make that allegation in respect of 1991, yet have no up-to-date information on the current crisis in North Shore and Auckland, or is it like “paintergate”—she makes it up as she goes along?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: My understanding is that TB did appear in our own community in the 1990s when levels of poverty rose. As I say to the member, if he wishes to ask questions about whether there are specific rules for refugees he should put them down. I do not have that information in front of me.

Mâori Television Service—Broadcasting Communications Ltd

4. MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) to the Minister of Broadcasting: Does he expect Broadcasting Communications Limited to remain the broadcast platform for the Mâori Television Service; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting): As the Minister responsible for Television New Zealand Ltd, which owns BCL, I am advised that BCL is involved in commercially sensitive negotiations with the Mâori Television Service about the provision of its transmission platform. As the negotiations have not been completed, I cannot comment further.

Marc Alexander: How can the Minister defend his Government’s continued interference in broadcast platform decisions, when a Mâori Television Service legal opinion states: “Government approval is unnecessary, in any event”; and given that statement, why will the Government not allow the Mâori Television Service to broadcast off the most readily available and cost-efficient platform available to it—that is, Sky Television?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The Government is not continually interfering in this matter. However, I point out that taxpayers’ money is involved and therefore the Government of course has an interest.

Mark Peck: What is BCL’s expertise in providing transmission platforms?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: BCL’s customers include five national free-to-air networks; a number of community and niche market television broadcasters; New Zealand’s national pay television—UHF network; and national FM radio broadcasters. As well, BCL provides telecommunication services to a wide and diverse range of customers, including New Zealand’s major carriers, Internet service providers, and mobile radio communications networks.

Katherine Rich: Is it not the case that the Minister will insist that the Mâori Television Service uses BCL—rather than a cheaper service from Sky—so the Minister can prop up a Government company already facing a $20 million capital gains tax bill, which he forgot about when he demanded that BCL be separated from TVNZ?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: BCL is trading profitably as a company, and I understand it intends to carry on being a successful business. If the member is referring to the so-called $20 million bill that will come from the separation, I have already said in the House that we anticipate paying not one cent.

Marc Alexander: Why is it that Ministers are personally able to interfere in what are actually commercial decisions regarding broadcast platforms for the service, yet when we ask fundamental questions about its leadership and recent personnel departures, we are told it is “an operational matter for the board”, for which Government Ministers conveniently have no responsibility?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have to remind the member that I am the person who is the Minister responsible for Television New Zealand, which owns BCL. Any questions he wants to ask me about this issue have to be about that one, not about the Mâori Television Service.

Marc Alexander: Why did a Cabinet committee, on Wednesday, reject a Mâori Television Service – backed Sky proposal to utilise one of its channels for the service, when such an option would allow the Mâori Television Service to go to air immediately—and more cheaply—or is this just a case of the Government ignoring blatant commercial common sense, so that it can line the pocket of its own transmission company with taxpayers’ cash?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I did not notice the member at the meeting, but I remind him again that I am the Minister responsible for TVNZ and for BCL. I am not responsible for the Mâori Television Service. He needs to ask the people responsible.

Marc Alexander: Why is it that $50 million worth of Government time, energy, and resources have been poured into the Mâori Television Service on air—something it still has not achieved—whereas industry experts, such as Jim Cross, estimate that a mere $3 million would shore up regional, local television stations across the entire country?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: These are excellent questions, and they should be put to the appropriate Minister.

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The last answer from the Minister raises a very interesting point, whereby we have a Minister of Broadcasting who is presumably responsible for broadcasting policy, and we have a separate Minister responsible for the Mâori Television Service. The difficulty that arises, in terms of submitting questions, is where they actually cut across two boundaries. It is sometimes very difficult to ask a question about the Mâori Television Service that does not impact upon broadcasting policy, and I submit to you that the type of answer the member received from the Minister saying: “Well, you should be asking my colleague.”, is not exactly satisfactory—given that overlap.

Mr SPEAKER: It might not be satisfactory and I might tend to agree with the member, if that were fact. The fact is, as the Clerk has just advised me, that he is not the appropriate Minister of which to ask the question. There is a Minister who is responsible. That Minister should be approached.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the 1½ page document between the United Future party and the Government, in which nothing is covered, at all.

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

Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Environment, Minister

5. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) to the Minister for the Environment: Does she stand by her statement of 24 July 2002 that the “Government never deviated from its policy of zero tolerance for GM contamination in seed imports.”?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): Yes.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry head of biosecurity and the Ministry for the Environment head of hazardous substances and new organisms write a briefing paper to her on 24 May 2001 stating: “We have had to change the policy from December 2000, which was for a defined level of tolerance of GM, because it was not consistent with the legislation”; how could they advise that unless there was a contamination tolerance that broke the law?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I understand that that briefing also notes that back in November 2000 tests on seeds that had come into the country could not confirm that GM seed was present. It also stated that Cabinet noted, in December 2000, that inspection systems were being developed and that on 19 December, I announced publicly that testing would be put in place to detect the presence of GM seed to the extent possible. The briefing shows that the Government never deviated from its policy of zero tolerance of contamination.

Nanaia Mahuta: Is the Government’s policy still one of zero tolerance of GM presence in seed imports?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Yes. The Government is very clear about its policy, unlike others in this House, since, contrary to Dr Smith, Dr Hutchison keeps calling for us to introduce a tolerance level for GM seed.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is not responsible, and I would be happy to seek leave to make a full statement of National’s policy if the House was interested.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any assistance on this. The Minister was making a comment. It was a very short one. She finished what she had to say. The next supplementary question can take place.

Hon Ken Shirley: Could the Minister please explain to the House how she continues to claim a zero tolerance policy, when two organisations that she has responsibility for, the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the MAF Biosecurity Authority, have both signed a memorandum of agreement that clearly states that the certification of imported seed allows for a tolerance of GM contamination of up to 0.5 percent?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Without actually looking at that particular quote that is in front of me, I know that this Government allowed for a 0.5 percent tolerance of uncertainty, and a zero tolerance of contamination.

Hon Ken Shirley: I seek leave to table the memorandum of understanding, which might help the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: The member could have raised this at the end of the question.

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

Jeanette Fitzsimons: How does the Minister explain the memo from Bas Walker, the Chief Executive Officer of the Environmental Risk Management Authority, on 6 December 2000, the day the decision was made to allow the corn to grow, in which he stated: “Our conclusion is that measured against a contamination tolerance of 0.5 percent, that existing material is acceptable, ie, it contains, to a high level of probability, less than 0.5 percent contamination. On this basis there is no case for destroying the grain or the crops. All of this, however, hangs off the acceptability of a 0.5 percent tolerance level. My assumption is that the Cabinet paper being prepared will seek Ministers’ agreement to this.”?

Mr SPEAKER: That was a little long, but I will allow it.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: The Cabinet paper quite clearly says to us that we will have a zero tolerance of contamination. We do accept a tolerance of uncertainty. I repeat again, as I said in the House the other day, one can have 100 percent certainty that there is no contamination only by testing every seed and destroying every seed. Scientists will not accept any test that says it can guarantee that 100 percent tolerance of certainty.

Larry Baldock: Was the Minister ever confused as to the difference between a legal tolerance for the presence of GM and the accuracy threshold of scientific tests for the presence of GM; if not, can she explain that difference for the benefit of those who do appear to have the two confused, such as Dr Nick Smith?

Mr SPEAKER: The first part of the question is all right. The second is ruled out.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: No, I was always clear that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act required zero tolerance of known GM seeds, and to have done otherwise would have required me to change the Act, but I was also clear that there were limits to the testing. Testing could show down to a level of 0.5 percent that no GM seed was present. The two tolerances that are being confused throughout this whole hearing by the authors of the book and by some of the people writing to each other in memos, but never by this Government, is the zero tolerance of contamination—which this Government held to—and the 0.5 percent tolerance of uncertainty.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the Minister expecting the House to believe that the head of biosecurity in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the head of hazardous substances and new organisms implementation within the Ministry for the Environment had it wrong when they advised her: “The initial approach by officials in December 2000 was to define a low level of acceptable GM presence. This was not consistent with the HASNO Act, which does not allow any unapproved GM organisms. Our new approach is to reject any consignment that tests positive for presence of GM material.”; and how can that be interpreted any other way than there being an allowable level of GM contamination?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: What officials may argue is very different from the policy that the Government followed.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Could the Minister consider the memo from Ruth Wilkie to the Prime Minister on 28 May 2001, in which she said: “There is a change of approach from that in December last year. Any positive test now will mean that the seed lot will be rejected.”, and tell the House what was the change that was being referred to?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I believe that Ms Wilkie was also confused—and said so in the committee of inquiry—between the notion of tolerance of contamination and tolerance of uncertainty.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Noting that Dr Basil Walker, who is in charge of the Environmental Risk Management Authority, has said there was an acceptable level of tolerance, noting that Dr Ruth Wilkie, from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, has said there was an acceptable level of contamination, noting that Steve Vaughan—

Mr SPEAKER: Please come to the question.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: —who is in charge of the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation within the Minister’s own department, has said there was an acceptable level of contamination, as did the head of biosecurity—

Mr SPEAKER: I have allowed the member to use the word “noting” in three examples. I said that the third one was sufficient, and he will now come to the question.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Are we to believe that the head of the Environmental Risk Management Authority, the Prime Minister’s adviser, and the head of biosecurity have all got it wrong; if so, how can we possibly have any confidence in the systems of biosecurity that this country running if the Minister is the only one who with it right?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: There are two points that I would like to make. In the member’s preliminary question, before he made a second attempt at the question, he was talking about levels of contamination, levels of tolerance, and levels of something else, and those are the kinds of arguments and the kind of misuse of terms that have been used by officials. The fact that we have clarity in our policy, and that we have absolutely zero tolerance in terms of knowingly accepting any genetically modified organism into this country, has not changed since the day the Act was passed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is this the same Minister who told the Local Government and Environment Committee that she had not read the Hager book because she did not want to contaminate her memory, and who admitted that she wrote an article criticising the book, who could then not remember whether she wrote that article, but who could remember that she had certainly approved it; how are we to understand the workings of her mind over those of officials who are obviously qualified?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Mr Hager’s allegations were well canvassed in the media at the time, and I heard them all. Once the facts had been checked, I was easily able to rebut his allegations of a cover-up, because there was no cover-up.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table a briefing paper to the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Biosecurity on 24 May.

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table a briefing note to the Prime Minister sent by Ruth Wilkie.

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

New Zealand Authors—Promotion to Children

6. Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour) to the Minister of Education: What initiatives, if any, has the Government taken to encourage children to become familiar with New Zealand authors?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): The Ministry of Education will provide funding over the next 3 financial years to support the writers in schools programme, which funds New Zealand writers to visit schools as part of four week-long programmes each year. It is specifically targeted at children in low-decile schools, and aims to foster a love of books, reading, and writing.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: How does that initiative fit within the Government’s wider policy agenda?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The Government is committed to improving the reading and writing skills of our children. We have invested considerably in literacy development over the past 4 years, particularly in areas of teacher professional development and learning resources. The programme also encourages children to become familiar with New Zealand authors, thereby supporting the Government’s goal to foster a strong national identity.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Given the intention of Government to encourage children to become more familiar with New Zealand authors, would it be the Government policy that people should read books before they write about them, particularly noting that one of the Minister’s Cabinet colleagues believes it is possible to write about a book without having read it?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: There is a wide variety of fiction available in New Zealand, including Nicky Hager’s Seeds of Distrust.

Mâori Television Service—Chief Executive

7. Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) to the Minister of Mâori Affairs: Was Mâori Television Service Chairman, Mr Walden, correct when he stated “at no time has the Mâori Television Service sought any kind of confidentiality agreement with Mr Fox. Nor has it restrained him from discussing the reasons for his resignation”; and, given that taxpayers’ money is involved, when will the public be given an account of what is going on?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Mâori Affairs): Mr Walden’s comments are a matter for himself and the Mâori Television Service board.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That statement by the Minister of Mâori Affairs is basically a refusal to answer the question. What is the point of the Minister being the Minister if he is saying that matters that go on with taxpayers’ money are nothing to do with him. Why has he taken a ministerial warrant?

Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister should expand a little on the answer he has given.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: In the first instance it is an operational matter, like any other business that is a human resource situation.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the Minister to please expand on that particular point just a little.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It has been a longstanding tradition in this House for Government departments and, even more than that, for organisations further from the Government—for example, Crown entities like the Mâori Television Service—that personal matters, which are operational matters and clearly under the Act of Parliament not a responsibility of individual Ministers, are not answered by Ministers in this House. I ask you to consider your direction to the Minister.

Hon Richard Prebble: We have an interesting dilemma. The whole House knows, and possibly you know if you read the weekend newspapers, that Mr Fox has told the country that he would be quite happy to say what went on but he was bound by a confidentiality agreement that prevented him from doing it. Mr Walden has said there is no confidentiality agreement. It would be absurd if a member of Parliament could not ask the Minister: “Who is lying? Is Mr Fox lying or is Mr Walden lying?”. Instead, we have an answer that we all know is an operational matter. So what, Minister! Was there or was there not a confidentiality agreement?

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister determined twice to answer in that particular way—that is, that it was an operational matter. He is entitled to give that as an answer. That does not mean the House has to accept it.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to take up the point that the Minister of State Services made about the conventions in the House. He stated that there are conventions here that we do not hold Ministers responsible for operational matters. It used to be a convention that we could hold Ministers responsible for those things that they are directly responsible for, like the actions of their civil servants, decisions made by their departments, and information released by them. It appears that it has become a convention, at least of this Government, that we cannot hold Ministers responsible even for Government departments for which they are directly responsible. Can I take it from this that you will accept the assertion made by the Minister of State Services that Ministers have no more responsibility for Crown entities these days than they do for Government departments?

Mr SPEAKER: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 117/1, which basically states that as far as asking the question is concerned the member has a perfect right to ask the question. The Minister has a right to answer it in his way, but obviously that does not mean that a member will always be satisfied with the answer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The problem with this is that the Minister can get up and literally say: “I don’t intend to answer because although I appointed the man to the head of the board his comments have nothing to do with me whatsoever.” Frankly, this Minister and his officials had at least 3½ hours to contact Mr Walden and to be able to say to this House: “I have contacted Mr Walden and he assures me that that is correct.” That at least is what he owes this House. To get up, having had all the access to the information in a very simple way and say that he will not answer the question by way of it being an operational matter, is simply treating this House with contempt.

Mr SPEAKER: The member might say that and he is entitled to, as a member, in response to the answer given, but the question was properly asked and the answer given was in order, in terms of the Standing Orders. I cannot put words in the mouth of the Minister, but people are free to criticise that answer.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I fully appreciate the dilemma that the Speaker is in, that you cannot make any Minister answer any question, but that is not quite the position we are in. The Minister is asking us to accept a new convention, because anything can be described as operational. It defies belief that the Minister does not know the answer. I think it would be helpful if you, as Speaker, would say that the parliamentary thing for a Minister to do, who knows the answer, is to give it, unless there is some reason of public policy as to why he should not. I cannot see what that could be, as we have two senior officials, one is an ex-official, one of whom has to be lying. What he is doing is leaving suspicion over the both of them. He should clear the person who is honest, from the one who is dishonest.

Mr SPEAKER: No, there is no convention—and I stress this point—about Ministers not being answerable for operational matters. I appreciate the point the member made at the start of his point of order, and that is the dilemma that any Speaker is in when an answer is given. It is not always acceptable to anybody else.

Dr Muriel Newman: In light of the Minister’s reply, could he clarify for the House and for the people of New Zealand which statement is true: that made by the chairman that there was no confidentiality agreement, or that made by the former chief executive that there was; if he cannot clarify that, how can the public possibly have any confidence that the $70 million poured into Mâori television will ever deliver anything more than a complete and utter shambles?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: As I said at the outset, and I have sought advice from Mr Walden, I was advised by the Mâori Television Service this morning that it never sought a confidentiality agreement between the Mâori Televison Service and Mr Fox. However, I am also advised by the Mâori Television Service that Mr Fox’s lawyer did seek a confidentiality clause, and the Mâori Television Service agreed to that, in one sentence. Can I labour on about this. If this House is to adjust terms of reference in human resources development and people’s contracts, then let us all have a look at our contracts. I understand that this is at an end.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is not the first time that we have had a non-answer from this Minister. We have had someone who says: “No, can’t do that. Can’t answer the question.”, and then, once the Opposition has used up a few questions and the Minister comes under a bit of pressure, goes on to reveal the information he or she was asked for in the first instance. I put it to you that this is bringing this House into disrepute. Opposition members ask a question, but the Minister says it is operational and he is not going to comment, and he is defended by Mr Mallard in his response that it is operational. You back the Minister and declare that if it is operational he does not have to comment. He then comes out and gives the full answer that he should have given in the first instance. I ask you to rule that Ministers should give the proper answer upfront.

Mr SPEAKER: I object strongly to the member saying that I supported the Minister. I upheld the Standing Orders, and I maintain that absolutely. I say to the Minister that I wish he had given that answer right at the start, because that would have been the appropriate thing to do. I am not going to penalise anybody who asks a subsequent question, and he or she may carry on doing so if he or she wishes.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think this is a case where you do have a sanction. There is no point in the Minister giving such a non-answer, except to use up the Opposition’s questions, which now, under your rulings this year—

Mr SPEAKER: I have just indicated to the member that that is what I am doing.

Hon Richard Prebble: You are going to give us some extra questions?

Mr SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon Richard Prebble: Oh, jolly good. Thank you. I am very much in favour of that answer.

Mr SPEAKER: There were two parties whose members asked a question, and they will get a question now—one to National and one to ACT. But the next question goes to the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What is the position? Did the board sign a confidentiality agreement with Mr Fox, as was denied at the start of the Minister’s answer, or is it that there was one agreed to by Mr Fox and the board, which was the suggestion the Minister made at the end of his answer, because the Minister said it was at the behest of Mr Fox’s lawyer; is there an agreement or is there not one in terms of a confidentiality agreement?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I will clarify for my learned elder over there. Mr Walden is quite clear that Mâori Television Service did not seek a confidentiality clause. It was sought in an overarching approach by Mr Fox’s lawyer. They are both the—[Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked in the primary question whether there was a confidentiality agreement. We still do not know whether the Minister’s view is that there is one or there is not one. But he seems to be alluding to the fact that Mr Fox’s lawyer sought a clause with regard to the full agreement that referred to confidentiality of a certain matter. Now if that is the case there is a confidentiality agreement. Could the Minister please say “yes” or “no”?

Mr SPEAKER: The first point is that I understood the Minister did say that there was a confidentiality agreement and that Mr Walden said there was one. I understood that quite clearly. Secondly, I understood the Minister to say that Mr Fox’s lawyer wants to have his own arrangement, also. That, to me, certainly addressed the question that was asked.

Mahara Okeroa: Does the chair of the Mâori Television Service board retain the confidence of the Minister?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Yes, most certainly. His commercial acumen is well tested and well known in this country.

Katherine Rich: Since the House is to understand that there is a confidentiality agreement, can the Minister tell the House what this agreement covers?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: As I said before, if this House is about to adjust the rights of people and their contracts, then that is something else we have to labour on. No.

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the Minister said “no” at the end of his question, and that was in answer to the question.

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister said that it was not for the House to adjust agreements. That is not what the member asked. The member asked whether there was a confidentiality agreement and what it covered. The Minister did not, in any way, refer to the question at all.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes he did. He said no, he would not give the details. I heard him say that and so did the Clerk.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, the Minister was asked whether he was aware of the agreement’s provisions, not whether he would release them, but whether he was aware of them. He did not answer the question that was asked by Katherine Rich.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I think the Minister did address that.

Rodney Hide: Is the House correct to conclude that Derek Fox sought, through his lawyer, a confidentiality agreement, which he now chooses to hide behind, and that Mr Walden, the Chairman of the Mâori Television Service, was incorrect when he said that there was no confidentiality agreement?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: In both parts the member is right. In the sense of what Mr Fox said and Mr Walden said, from their own points of view, I believe that they were giving an honest answer.

Rodney Hide: Was the chairman of the Mâori Television Service factually correct when he said there was no confidentiality agreement binding Mr Fox?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been considering that last answer—now we are in a real quandary—and no one is any the wiser now as to what has gone on. We have just been told that Mr Walden was correct in saying that there was no confidentiality agreement. The word “sought” was not in that question. The operative word that was in the primary question is not there. The straight, factual question was: was he correct when he said that there was no agreement on confidentiality? The Minister’s answer was “Yes”. Well, it cannot stand against the primary answer.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister gave an answer that certainly addressed the question that was asked. He said “Yes”. I cannot think of any more specific answer than that.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Speaking to the point of order, can I clarify this, quite clearly? Mr Walden did not seek an agreement. The Mâori Television Service board did not seek the agreement.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think anyone in the House wants the Minister to commit a breach of privilege, and it is possible that his answers are still correct. One interpretation still lies open, from the Minister, which he has not clarified, and it is this: yes, Mr Fox’s lawyers sought a confidentiality agreement, and yes, it was granted, but in no way does that confidentiality agreement prevent Mr Fox from saying what has happened; it might prevent the Mâori Television Service. It would be helpful if he would clarify that, because that would indicate that Mr Fox has actually been telling porkies in the media.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: That is correct.

Dr Muriel Newman: In light of the Minister’s performance today, evading answers and wasting the time of the House—

Mr SPEAKER: Would the member just come to the question, please.

Dr Muriel Newman: Can the Minister tell the House whether there is now anything stopping Mr Fox from telling the truth—yes or no?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: No.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that in any other self-respecting democracy such a procedure as we just heard in this question could have been one where a Minister survived at the end of it. The fundamental facts are that we now think, or we have been told, that there was no agreement; then there was an agreement, that Mr Fox sought it, that it was granted. The last question answered to Mr Prebble was that Mr Fox was telling porkies.

Hon Phil Goff: No.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes it was. Now Mr Fox has been called a liar. Yet, in a prior question the Minister said that his lawyers had sought a confidentiality clause and it had been granted. So Fox is not telling lies, but today he is. At the end of this debacle—which is an absolute shambles, the like of which I have not seen in Parliament—the Prime Minister has to ask herself what is going on with her administration.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Whether the answers are correct or consistent is a matter for examination and debate, not a point of order.

Environmental Risk Management Authority—Review

8. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Is she satisfied with the progress the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) has made in addressing the recommendations of the review of ERMA; if so, why?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): Yes, I have received both a draft report—I think a second version on the one that was given in confidence to the select committee—and verbal advice from the chair of the authority that action has been either completed or substantially taken on 40 of the review’s 49 recommendations.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: What concrete actions has the authority taken since the release of the review to address the serious criticisms in that review, and what practical effect will they have on the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s management of the risks of genetic engineering?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: A number of actions have been taken to strengthen the authority’s governance role in line with the whole chapter of recommendations to do with governance. They include defining the responsibilities of the authority and the board, stronger focus on governance duties, and a restructuring of the authority’s standing committees. There has also been a formal self-assessment of its governance performance, a performance review of the chief executive officer of the Environmental Risk Management Authority, and strict guidelines have been set for the following year. I could go on. A number of very practical recommendations have been taken.

Moana Mackey: What did the review say about the authority’s performance as the independent decision maker controlling the introduction of new plants and animals, including genetically modified organisms?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: The review team found that the authority contained a good cross section of the necessary skills and experience. Furthermore, the staff of the agency that supports the authority are of an extremely high calibre. The review panel’s report stated in paragraph 2.5.1 that it concentrated on what could be improved, rather than on what is already sound and effective.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Can the Minister confirm that the Cabinet policy committee on 9 April 2003 noted that economic modelling results suggest that the release of GM organisms closer to the human food chain posed greater risk than releases from medical or pest control purposes; if so, what expectations of the Environmental Risk Management Authority has the Government imposed to cater for that reality?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: The expectations I have expressed in discussions with the chair of the authority are that if there are issues to do with genetically modified organisms coming directly into our food chain as a result of any release, conditional or otherwise, I would consider that probably a serious enough matter to do it for them.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: In view of the statements in the review that “There are tensions between staff of the agency and their counterparts in MAF over the efficacy of some controls and the regularity of monitoring imposed, and it is at this point that the system of risk management for new organisms is most vulnerable.”, is she happy with the authority’s response to the Education and Science Committee that the operating agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is “a cooperative arrangement that already functions very effectively”?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: In response to the review panel’s report on recommendations 16 and 49, arrangements are in place for regular and ongoing dialogue between the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on new organisms controls, on setting out the monitoring that goes with that, and on setting out who is responsible in which particular area so there is not any of the miscommunications of the past.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is she concerned that the authority’s current methodology for analysing risks, costs, and benefits analyse only the financial costs and benefits to the applicant and completely ignore economic costs to neighbouring farmers and to New Zealand as a whole?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I am quite confident from discussions I have had with the chair of the authority that the economic costs to New Zealand as a whole will be taken into consideration in the methodology that is under review at the moment.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister not agree that the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s replies to the select committee on the actions it has taken to implement the 49 recommendations show it is in denial that any of the serious problems identified by the committee even exist, and that her answers tend to support that denial?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: The draft the member saw, which was a primary draft, and I have seen further work since then, does not show that the authority is in denial. The authority says that work is in progress, and since the report was written, and since the review has taken place, some of those recommendations have been fully met and undertaken. I have total confidence in the Environmental Risk Management Authority.

Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Prime Minister

9. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: How does she reconcile her statements on TV3 on Wednesday 10 July 2002 that “we really went back and sought further information as to whether there was a threshold level that had been breached. That’s my recollection.” and “my recollection was that on testing and sampling it was determined that it didn’t pass a sufficient threshold level to be considered a problem.” with the statement by her Minister for the Environment that the “Government never deviated from its policy of zero tolerance for GM contamination in seed imports.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Easily, there was, and still is, a legal requirement for zero tolerance, and no reliable evidence of contamination was found. The threshold the Government adhered to throughout was zero.

Hon Bill English: Did she receive, read, and understand a memo from Ruth Wilkie on 28 May 2001 alerting her personally to the fact that the Government had been operating a policy “inconsistent with existing legislation”, or did she regard that memo as just another fantasy on the part of Ruth Wilkie, who apparently can make up memos about meetings that never happened and, in this case, made up a memo about a policy that never operated?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes, I have seen that memo, and that memo did not alert me to any change of Government policy. What it alerted me to, and the member for Nelson has referred to this in an earlier question, was debate going on between officials as to whether, as the National spokesperson on science believes, there should have been a permissible level of GM contamination. That was never the position Ministers adopted.

Hon Bill English: How is it that in making those quotes the Prime Minister seemed to have a detailed recollection of the details of testing procedures, when she has maintained all along that she never took much interest in the issue?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The problem with that interview without notice was that the Prime Minister was being asked to recall things that had happened a year and 9 months before, and in which she had not had any central part in driving at all.

Stephen Franks: Does the Prime Minister still want the Broadcasting Standards Authority to force TV3 to pay $25,000 and apologise for not, in the authority’s terms, “achieving balance in regard to the issue of Government accountability and trustworthiness”; if so, what does the Prime Minister think that says about abuse of power in high office to compel TV3 to apologise for tackling her with what is now shown to have been the truth, however viciously she denied it at the time?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is a matter of record that a Broadcasting Standards Authority decision stated that the Prime Minister had been treated unfairly, that the programme was unbalanced, and that it lacked objectivity and impartiality. On the basis of those findings the parties were asked to make submissions on what actions should follow, and my lawyer did. We made a submission on the basis that costs should be paid in the light of those findings.

Hon Bill English: In the light of the Prime Minister’s deep concern about whether she is treated fairly, or is a victim of her own success—[Interruption]—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask that you enforce the requirements you indicated earlier that there would be no interjections during questions. There were at least three, including one from Nick Smith.

Mr SPEAKER: I want the member to carry on with his question.

Hon Bill English: In light of the Prime Minister’s deep concern that she is treated fairly, and not as a victim of her own success, does she believe she is treating Ruth Wilkie fairly with her allegations today that Ms Wilkie manufactured the story about a meeting between the Prime Minister and Mary Anne Thompson, where they discussed what documents were going to be released and what documents were going to be held back, and is that fair to Ruth Wilkie?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have made no such allegation. What I will say is that no leader of the National Party has been less successful than this one. He would not know what success was if he fell over it.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In answering that question the Prime Minister effectively denied what she has already said in question time, which was that the meeting referred to in the Wilkie memo never happened. As I understand it, the record of the House shows that the Prime Minister said the memo never happened—she said that the meeting never happened, of course the memo did, and that is unfortunate for her.

Mr SPEAKER: That is a matter of debate; it is not a matter of whether the answer addressed the question. If the member thinks that the House has been misled he has a proper process to follow.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister climbed to her feet, gave her denial, then launched into an attack on the questioner. How is that possibly within the Standing Orders, Speakers’ Rulings, or the proper conduct of the affairs of this House?

Mr SPEAKER: The member is perfectly correct, the Prime Minister should not have had that last part of the answer, but she certainly addressed the question.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: What did the Prime Minister understand to be the change of approach referred to in Ruth Wilkie’s memo of 28 May 2001 in which she appears to contrast the previous position of “a defined level of tolerance” with the new standard “any positive result will mean that the seed lot will be rejected”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: My analysis of these papers would suggest that Ms Wilkie was referring to a matter that the member for Nelson brought to the attention of the House earlier in question time today, and that was paragraph 24 of a memo to the Minister for Biosecurity and the Minister for the Environment, which referred to an initial approach proposed by officials. That was never an approach that the Ministers adopted, but as the member will know if she has conscientiously been through 1,800-plus pages of evidence, there seemed to be a great debate going on between officials as to whether they were talking about probability, statistical levels of competence, or against permissible levels of contamination, as advocated by Dr Paul Hutchison, National’s spokesperson on science.

Tourism—Marketing, Japan

10. STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister of Tourism: What is being done to encourage recovery in the inbound tourism market from Japan?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Tourism): The House may be aware that the Japan outbound traveller numbers have dropped significantly as a result of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) virus, just as they did following the events of 11 September 2001. Key Government agencies and sector representatives are working in close partnership to promote the recovery of our fourth largest tourism market. In this regard, last week I travelled to Japan to work with Tourism New Zealand on our Japan market recovery programme. I announced there the doubling of Tourism New Zealand’s funding for the successful “100 Percent Pure New Zealand” campaign in Japan.

Steve Chadwick: What other initiatives are planned to encourage visitors from Japan?

Hon MARK BURTON: As well as an increase in the marketing budget for Japan, New Zealand will have a major presence, coordinated by Tourism New Zealand, involving 20 New Zealand tourism operators at the Japan Association of Travel Agents world travel fair in Yokohama in October.

It will also be sponsoring the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra performance in Osaka around the “100 Percent Pure New Zealand” campaign. My discussions with industry leaders in Japan make me confident the Japan market recovery programme will assist and encourage Japanese visitors to return to New Zealand, just as they did after a similar promotional partnership between industry and the Government during 2001.

Mike Ward: Is the Minister not concerned that his campaign to promote “100 Percent Pure New Zealand” to attract Japanese tourists will be undermined if the Government lifts the GE moratorium, given that 76 percent of Japanese people believe that GE is bad for their health and the environment?

Hon MARK BURTON: No.

Ministerial Confidence—Prime Minister

11. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Research, Science and Technology and Convenor, Ministerial Group on Climate Change; if so, why?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.

Hon Bill English: Does the Government intend to implement a compulsory agricultural greenhouse gas emissions research levy, or not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The Government remains optimistic about a voluntary level. It waits with eager anticipation to see whether the National Party has a policy on withdrawing from the protocol.

Hon Ken Shirley: Is her Government considering a politically less-damaging way of collecting revenue to fund research into the gaseous by-products of the ruminant gut, as an alternative to the “fart and burp tax” promoted by her Minister Hodgson; if so, what are those alternative revenue-gathering proposals?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: There is no such tax, as the member knows. The Government will continue to talk with its friends and colleagues in the farming industry.

Hon Bill English: Given the Prime Minister’s statements that she is a strong, front-footing, leadership Prime Minister does she plan to meet the farmers on the front steps of Parliament on Thursday to explain the Government’s position on the flatulence tax; if not, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have engagements in Auckland on Thursday.

Growth and Innovation Framework—High Tech Companies

12. Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) to the Minister for Industry and Regional Development: What commitment has the Government given recently to high tech companies which meet the objectives of the coalition Government’s Growth and Innovation Framework to establish New Zealand as a centre of excellence for innovative development?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Industry and Regional Development): On Monday it was announced that Investment New Zealand’s strategic investment fund will provide a $2 million guarantee for technology assistance support to Auckland biotechnology company Protomix. Protonix will apply to the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology under its existing programmes and criteria, and any difference between the available assistance from the foundation and the $2 million will be underwritten by Investment New Zealand. The deal will ensure that New Zealand retains and recruits the pool of scientists, business people, and scientific entrepreneurs it needs to participate fully in the global biopharmaceutical market—all objects of the Growth and Innovation Framework strategy.

Hon Matt Robson: Why did Investment New Zealand get involved in this venture, given that any investment in new research is, by definition, financially risky?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Protonix has attracted significant interest from venture capitalists to provide it with most of the financial capacity it needed to continue its drug-discovery development and commercialisation programme. The provision of the strategic investment fund, underwritten to enable Protonix to complete its $2 million capital-raising programme, allows control of Protonix, its drug-discovery and development pipeline, and its team of scientists to remain in New Zealand, while allowing for international collaboration and partnering for commercialisation of its discoveries.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is not Protonix’s new diabetes treatment an example of the widely supported, well-tested, laboratory-based biotechnology that New Zealand is good at, and which has the potential to bring substantial economic gains to the country; if so, why did the Government persist in wanting to undermine this success by pursuing other forms of biotechnology that threaten our health, environment, and economy?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: The Government is supporting Protonix because it is an example of an innovative, creative industry, which holds significant promise not only to New Zealanders in the diabetes situation but to the world itself. I would have thought that, for once, the Greens could celebrate that fact with this Government and all New Zealanders.

Hon Mark Gosche: What is the significance of the biotechnology sector to New Zealand’s chances of becoming a wealthier nation?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Biotechnology is one of the focus sectors of the Growth and Innovation Framework because it has particular scope to add significant value to our already world-class primary sectors. In this case, Protonix developed new therapies for diabetes and associated cardiovascular disease, as well as for metabolic disorders. It has a number of diabetes-related drugs under development, including one capable of generating annual revenue of NZ$1,500 million or more, for diabetic heart disease. The $2 million underwrite is reflective of this coalition Government’s commitment to expand significantly the biotechnology sector of New Zealand.

Questions to Members

Local Government and Environment Committee—Prime Minister

1. Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee: Will the chairperson be requesting the Prime Minister to attend a meeting of the committee in relation to the inquiry into “corngate”; if so, when?

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee): The committee considered a motion to that effect last week, and it was not agreed to. As far as I am concerned, that is the end of the matter.

Hon Richard Prebble: How can the committee credibly carry out its own terms of reference—in particular, whether a contamination tolerance level was accepted by the Government in 2000—in light of the memorandum to the Prime Minister by Ruth Wilkie on 8 December 2000, headed “Possible contamination of imported seed with genetically modified material” and stating: “We cannot say whether we have reliably discovered contamination in the corn currently planted, but equally we cannot say that we have completely discounted it”, and the Prime Minister’s statement on the eve of the 11 July election—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will be seated. The member knows full well that the chairperson is responsible for her actions as chairperson. She is not responsible for voting decisions by individual members of the committee, and the question relates to that.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A committee has set up an inquiry to publicly investigate this matter, and I think I am entitled to ask the committee—not the chairperson—how the committee believes that it can discover whether there has been a cover-up and whether the Prime Minister’s statement on the eve of the election, that “I can state categorically that the tests confirm that there was no evidence that there was GE contamination.”, was true, or whether it was a complete cover-up by the Government.

Mr SPEAKER: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 22/1. He knows full well that it is the chairperson alone, not the committee, who can be asked about her actions as chair.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If you are going to put it that way, I ask the chairperson why she regards the matter as ending at this point, given the fact that the Prime Minister made a public statement categorically denying that there was any GE contamination, which was in contradiction to statements given to her by her own officials.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: I believe the committee has ample written evidence in front of it to reach a conclusion, eventually, about whether a threshold was set, and we are seeking additional scientific interpretation of test results to help us with the question of just what those results showed in terms of likely contamination. Those are important terms of reference for the committee, and I believe we can answer them with the information we have.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is it true that the chairperson was threatened by Labour that if she voted for my motion in favour of the Prime Minister coming before the committee, there would be adverse consequences for the Green Party in any future coalition?

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: No.

Local Government and Environment Committee—Genetically Modified Sweetcorn

2. DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee: When will the committee next meet to discuss the inquiry into the alleged accidental release of genetically engineered sweetcorn plants in 2000 and the subsequent actions taken?

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee): While a committee schedule is always subject to change, I am anticipating that the next meeting on the inquiry will be on 18 September, after the committee has had the opportunity to make further progress on the dogs legislation.

David Parker: Did the Hon Dr Nick Smith disclose to the select committee his conflict of interest as a trustee of the Cawthron Institute, when he nominated the expert adviser from Cawthron to independently advise the select committee on the sweetcorn inquiry?

Mr SPEAKER: The obligation on members to declare pecuniary interests is an obligation that falls on the member concerned, not on the Speaker or on the chairperson of a select committee. If members feel that the obligation has not been complied with, there is a procedure for raising it with the speaker. That question is not in order.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I wish to make a personal explanation with regard to the issue that has been raised. The Cawthron legislation provides that the member of Parliament for Nelson will be a trustee. When the Local Government and Environment Committee sought to get an independent adviser, I told the committee of my involvement. I said that the Cawthron Institute, of which I had some knowledge, was completely independent of Government, and the final decision about the selection of the adviser was made by the Clerk of the House, because the committee had a tied vote and could not come to an conclusion.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you now to consider your ruling. The question asked of the chair was not around the question of pecuniary interest, but about whether a declaration of conflict of interest had been made at the committee. It was about a matter of fact at the committee, and is clearly a disagreement as to those facts. It could be easily cleared up by the chair of the committee.

Mr SPEAKER: That is nothing to do with the House or the Speaker. That question is out of order.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What concerned me, during that supplementary question from Mr Parker—which was in no way connected to his original question, which was about when the committee was next to meet—was that you immediately rose to your feet and read your ruling from a piece of paper. That leads me to believe that you, or the Clerk, had been given advance notice of the second question that Mr Parker was to ask and, therefore, have in some way bought into the stunt that the Government has pulled in the House. I want an assurance that you were not given notice of the content of the supplementary question. If the Clerk was given it and then went to you, we can deal with it in a different way, but I want an assurance from you that you were not being used by the Government in this matter.

Mr SPEAKER: Absolutely. I want to say that, as far as I am concerned, the Clerk saw the question, we talked about it at our meeting, and I said that we had better have a ruling ready in case there is something asked that is out of order. I also say to the House that the Clerk knew because the words were in the original question. That is how we knew. I had no knowledge of the question being asked until I saw it on the Order Paper.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table in the House the minutes associated with the appointment of the technical adviser to the Local Government and Environment Committee, so the record can be absolutely clear to the House as to how that appointment was made.

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

Hon Richard Prebble: In elaboration of subsequent actions that the Local Government and Environment Committee is going to take, will the chairperson be taking into account that this committee of inquiry was set up at the suggestion of the Prime Minister, as stated in her press release; and given that, does she not think it would be a good idea if the Prime Minister was to front up and tell the House the truth?

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: I can confirm that when the committee first discussed the suggestion that there be an inquiry into this matter, we did have reference to the statement the Prime Minister made that she would be happy for a select committee to inquire into the matters. I have no further comment to make about the Prime Minister’s appearance. That matter was resolved by resolution of the committee.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If she asserts as she did that she was not under any pressure from the Prime Minister, what did she think that attack yesterday was all about, or does she still think she is on the Prime Minister’s Christmas card list?

Mr SPEAKER: The member can answer the question if she wishes.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: I would just point out to the member that the vote on whether to request the Prime Minister to attend took place last week. The Prime Minister’s statements about me took place yesterday. I do not think one could have affected the other.

Question No. 1 to Member

DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My first point of order is in terms of the number of questions today. I think you might be in error as to the counting of supplementaries from the Government side in that in Question No. 1 did not have a supplementary asked.

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary questions are counted on the ordinary 12 questions. They are not counted on questions to members.

DAVID PARKER: I seek leave to table the minutes of the 13 March 2003 meeting, when Dr Smith voted in favour of requesting the Clerk of the House to advise who would be the best of two experts to assist the committee, but he did not disclose his conflict of interests.

Mr SPEAKER: We have already had leave sought, and leave has been granted, but I will seek the leave of that particular meeting’s minutes to be tabled.

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

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have allowed under a point of order a member’s word to be questioned. Dr Nick Smith stood up in this House by leave, gave a personal explanation as to what had happened, and then we had this fish at the back of the thing take a point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: The point of order will be expressed tersely and without any interjection.

RODNEY HIDE: You allowed Mr David Parker to stand up at the back, take a point of order, and directly contradict the personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER: As far as I am concerned, I realised that there was a request for something to be tabled, and I heard something about minutes. At that point I ceased listening because I understood what was asked to be tabled. If the member was using that to question the word of another member, he will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

David Parker: No, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: Right, that is all that needs to be said.

DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The honourable member, Dr Nick Smith sought leave of the House to table the minutes. That does not impose upon him any obligation to table the minutes. I too sought leave to—

Mr SPEAKER: I wish the member would read the Standing Orders. If he says he has leave to table them, he is expected to table them. If he does not, then he faces the—

Hon Member: It’s optional.

Mr SPEAKER: I agree with that. It is still optional. I have now been assured by the member that he will, and every member of the House heard him give that assurance.

End of Questions for Oral Answer

(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

© Scoop Media