( Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing. For corrected transcripts, please visit: http://www.clerk.parliament.govt.nz/hansard )
Thursday, 2 March 2006
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers
1. Social Development and Employment, Minister—Allegations
2. KiwiSaver Scheme—Business Reaction
3. Social Development and Employment, Minister—Personal Judgment
4. Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry Officials—Confidence
5. Electricity—Supply
6. Accident and Emergency Services—Hospital Benchmark Report
7. Transit New Zealand—State Highway Funding
8. World Trade Organization—Viet Nam
9. Small Business, Minister—Employment Issues
10. Environment Court—Whangamata Marina
11. Accident Compensation Corporation—Performance, International Reports
12. Social Development and Employment, Minister—Allegations
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers
Madam SPEAKER: I just remind members at the beginning of question time that, although there is always a level of
chatter, there are to be no interjections while the question is being asked, and if we could have as much silence as
possible, it will assist.
Social Development and Employment, Minister—Allegations
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement that: “I am
also aware that Mr Benson-Pope has stated that his behaviour complied with school policy at the time.”; if so, does he
believe that statement includes all allegations that have come to light about the Hon David Benson-Pope’s conduct as a
teacher, including those investigated by police?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Yes. I stand by my statement that Mr Benson-Pope has stated that his
behaviour complied with school policy at the time. A large number of allegations have been made about Mr Benson-Pope’s
conduct by members opposite, but they remain without foundation. The allegations contained in the police report were, of
course, the subject of a wide-ranging investigation that resulted in no action being taken by the police, who noted at
the time that these alleged events happened many years ago, and the victims were not motivated to lay complaints at the
time.
Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware of a complaint from a former Bayfield High School teacher that Mr Benson-Pope
had bullied her, that there was a formal mediation, and that she received a letter of apology from Mr Benson-Pope?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am aware of that incident. I am also aware that the apology was mutual.
Hon Phil Goff: Do the comments on the files of the police investigation into Mr Benson-Pope that the Minister referred
to support the innuendo of Mr English and Ms Collins, or do they indicate that, overwhelmingly, fellow teachers and
students alike regarded David Benson-Pope as competent, as dedicated, and as a respected and popular teacher?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am well aware of the reports that say exactly that—that this was a person with a 24-year,
respected, professional career.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister aware of reports from Labour caucus colleagues that Mr Benson-Pope bullied them,
but in every case their complaints were unwarranted?
Madam SPEAKER: There is no ministerial responsibility for that question.
Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm, in the case of the bullying complaint, that a complaint was certainly made,
that it was dealt with formally, and that Mr Benson-Pope took action himself by writing a letter of apology; and does
the Minister now accept Mr Benson-Pope’s statement to the House that he is unaware of “any complaint of any kind”?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am not intimate with every single detail of this event. I said before that those people laid
complaints and mutually apologised to each other. I imagine that the same kind of bullying behaviour has gone on between
Mr English and his party, but I am sure that no one has apologised to him—yet—for dumping him as leader.
Hon Phil Goff: What reports has the Minister seen that support Bill English’s assertion “that teachers’ unions and the
public are united in their condemnation of Mr Benson-Pope”?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have not heard any such reports. Indeed, last night on television I watched the people of Dunedin
say unanimously that they supported their local MP. I also heard the following comments on Television New Zealand’s
Close Up programme, from Principals Federation president, Pat Newman—[Interruption]
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. In question time yesterday members complained they could not hear answers to questions.
So I would remind members that of course they can interject, but they are to keep the barrage down so that all members
can hear the answer.
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have heard no such reports. Indeed, I watched television last night to see the people of Dunedin
unanimously supporting their local MP. I also heard the following comments on Television New Zealand’s Close Up
programme, from Principals Federation president, Pat Newman: “It is not election year. Politicians have a responsibility
to look at the harm they are doing to our profession by jumping on the bandwagon that’s not yet been proven. Stop
demeaning male teachers, and stop attacking them.”—very good advice to Mr English.
Hon Bill English: Does the Minister share the view of the Prime Minister that the school camp complaints referred to in
the House yesterday were not serious, so Mr Benson-Pope’s statement to the House—that he did not know of any complaint
of any kind—was acceptable; if so, does the Government believe that the second bullying complaint is also too trivial
for Mr Benson-Pope to remember, and that it is therefore acceptable for him to mislead the House about that complaint,
as well?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It is not my recollection that the Prime Minister said yesterday that the complaints were not
serious. What she was saying was that they were not formally laid and did not lead to disciplinary action. That leaves
open the fact that people often complain about what teachers might do—as Mr Brownlee knows—but that does not lead to
disciplinary action.
Hon Bill English: Now that the House has established that there were certainly two complaints of a serious nature
against Mr Benson-Pope, which he must have known about, is it still the Minister’s position that Mr Benson-Pope’s
statement: “Nor am I aware of any complaint of any kind.”, was a statement of the truth?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: My understanding is that Mr Benson-Pope has consistently noted that he was referring to formally laid
complaints that lead to disciplinary action, not the normal discussion that goes around any school. In that sense he has
adopted an honest approach.
Hon Bill English: Is it now the Government’s position, in respect of the school camp complaints, that Mr Benson-Pope
knew about them, but because he knew they were dealt with outside the formal disciplinary process, he did not have to
tell the House; and in respect of the bullying complaints, Mr Benson-Pope knew about that matter as well, but he did not
regard a formal mediation by his own union as a process that warranted rating it as a serious complaint—so he could
mislead the House on that one, too?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The accusations that Mr Benson-Pope has misled the House are simply wrong. He has consistently made
it clear that the normal complaints that go around schools, which people such as Mr Brownlee will be aware of, do not
constitute the kinds of formal complaints he was referring to.
KiwiSaver Scheme—Business Reaction
2. SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports, if any, has he received on the business
reaction to the KiwiSaver scheme?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Among the many positive reports I have seen on the scheme is one from the
Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern). This notes that “Employers in general are supportive of KiwiSaver.”
The report went on to express some concern around compliance costs for small business, something it was working to
minimise. The report concluded that the future augers well for the scheme.
Shane Jones: Is that report representative of the feedback received from business?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes; for example, there is similarly positive feedback from ING and from AMP. The only serious
report I have seen that is not generally supportive of the scheme is one that continues a nonsensical comparison of it
with a Christmas club. I am sure that all the entire managed funds industry and financial sector of New Zealand will be
pleased to know that Mr Key thinks they run Christmas clubs.
John Key: Should unions compromise their annual wage demands if they are asking employers to make matching contributions
to KiwiSaver?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think it is highly desirable that unions and employees think about the way in which they can
move forward on KiwiSaver, and I would expect, obviously, that if unions are seeking some degree of salary increase as a
result of KiwiSaver contributions to employers, that would be offset in part by salary sacrifice around their own
straight wage demands.
Craig Foss: What proportion of KiwiSaver accounts does he think will fall dormant or remain with very modest balances,
and how does he calculate that proportion?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: On the last part, obviously it is not possible to make calculations since we will not know until
we have seen the scheme in operation. But, of course, if we set up a scheme that provides for lock-in until retirement
and provides no ability for flexibility of contributions—for holidays, or to pay down the mortgage, for example—first,
National will attack it because it did not have the flexibility, and second, very few people would sign up to the
scheme.
Te Ururoa Flavell: Nâ runga i te kautenui o te tau 2001 i kî nei, ko te weheruatanga o ngâ utu mô te Mâori pakeke ake i
te 15 tau he tekau $14,800, he whai kiko te whakaaro ka taea ç te Mâori te hoatu kia 4 ô-rau o tôna pûtea moni hua ki te
kaupapa Kiwisaver; kua tono anô ia ki ngâ rangatira Mâori pçrâ i çrâ kei te hui, kei te wânanga i ngâ kaupapa â-pûtea
hei whakamana i te Mâori kei te tû i te marae o Pipitea i tçnei rangi?
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[In the light of the 2001 census data that the median income of all Mâori over the age of 15 was $14,800, how realistic
is it to expect Mâori will contribute 4 percent of their income to the KiwiSaver scheme; and has he sought any advice
from Mâori leaders such as those currently meeting to discuss Mâori economic empowerment at Pipitea Marae today?]
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I was not aware of that meeting until about an hour or so ago, so it is a bit quick for me to
have received any response back from them, from an approach I have yet to make and probably will not make today. On the
former matter, of course since then unemployment rates amongst Mâori have dropped very considerably indeed, and median
incomes will have risen amongst Mâori. There is no reason why Mâori who are on the same incomes as Pâkehâ should not
have similar savings rates, and every reason why they should.
Tariana Turia: What reports has he received from his Mâori MPs that the KiwiSaver scheme will have a discriminatory
impact for Mâori because so few live past the age of 65 years and will therefore not access the benefits of the scheme
in a proportional manner?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That makes a fundamental error. Unlike New Zealand superannuation—which of course if one dies
before the age of 65 one never collects—with a contributory scheme even if one dies before the age of 65, the assets
within that scheme become part of one’s estate to pass on to one’s heirs. In that respect the KiwiSaver scheme is
advantageous when compared with New Zealand superannuation.
Shane Jones: Has he any reports from business expressing concerns about the hardship criteria in the bill?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen a report stating that the bill does not define financial hardship. That seems
somewhat strange, since clause 11 sets out a quite specific set of rules around that definition, and perhaps before Mr
Key utters further silly statements he might care to actually read the bill.
Social Development and Employment, Minister—Personal Judgment
3. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How often does he exercise
personal judgment in his role as Minister for Social Development and Employment?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Often, and subject of course to existing
Government policy and the collective decisions of my Cabinet colleagues.
Judith Collins: What does it say of his ability to make sound judgments for one of our country’s most important
ministries, when his judgment has seen him call the tennis ball allegations “ridiculous” and say that he “utterly
refuted them”, then change track and merely say he has no recollection of the incident, and when his judgment has seen
him prematurely release parts of his police report and say that it “vindicated him”, when police found the nine
witnesses against him credible and that there was a prima facie case of assault against him?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Those allegations were exhaustively canvassed by a very lengthy police investigation, at the end
of which the authorities made a decision to take no further action.
Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister was asked what it said about his ability to make
sound judgments. I do not believe, if you consider his answer, that he actually addressed that question.
Madam SPEAKER: The Minister addressed the question.
Judith Collins: What does it say of his personal judgment that he referred to the latest allegations of improper
behaviour as “nonsense”, only to acknowledge later that there had been complaints, and then to apologise?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: The quote referred to was in relation to the articles on the Wishart website, and those
allegations were despicable—as despicable as the comments of that member in the House yesterday.
Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is that comment by the Minister in order or out of order?
Madam SPEAKER: It was not an unparliamentary term.
Judith Collins: OK—as long as we can now use “despicable”. What does it say of his personal judgment that he said to the
House yesterday: “I completely refute the ridiculous statement that has just been made by Mr Hide”; and if does refute
it, what does he now want to say to Geana Earl, who has backed up Mr Hide’s allegation?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I would say to Geana Earl that she should recall not only my refutation of her allegation but
also that of the school and the female staff member, Ms Armstrong, who was present at the same time, which was
communicated to her parents some years ago.
Judith Collins: What does it say of his personal judgment that he said in this House he was not aware of any complaints
made against him, when it has been alleged and verified that a student, a parent, and a teacher all laid complaints
against him?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Like any member of this House, I am human and sometimes make mistakes. [Interruption]
Madam SPEAKER: If you wish to remain in the Chamber in question time, please do not interrupt while the member is asking
her question.
Heather Roy: What advice would he give, as the Minister for Social Development and Employment, to a mother if a male
teacher had entered a dormitory when girls were getting dressed or changing, whether or not the school had a policy in
place, and can he detail any circumstances when it would be appropriate for a male teacher to enter a dormitory
unannounced?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I would advise the mother or any parent or concerned adult to make an appropriate approach to the
relevant authorities and ascertain the facts of the matter concerned.
Rodney Hide: Following his answer yesterday, does he now accept that he did enter a girls’ dormitory in 1998, after the
policy had changed, when the young pupils were getting changed for a school tramp, to give them “a hurry-up”?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I do not recollect, but if so it would have been subject to the school’s procedures, including
the giving of an advance warning.
Hon Phil Goff: I seek the leave of the House to table a document, from a National voter, saying that he sees these
personal attacks on Mr Benson-Pope as being from small-minded and malicious people who wish only to ruin a man’s
reputation.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection?
Judith Collins: Point of order—
Madam SPEAKER: I am dealing with something else, and I would like to complete it. Leave was sought. [Interruption] Does
the member wish to raise a point of information?
Judith Collins: Yes, a point of information. How does the Minister know that that document is from a National voter,
when, of course, votes in this country are secret and anybody can say he or she is a National voter—and, hopefully,
there will be a lot more?
Hon Phil Goff: Simply, because the person states in black and white that he is a National voter, and “probably always
will be although I still weigh all the issues up before voting”.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Leave granted.
Hon Steve Maharey: I seek leave to table an email from a National Party voter, who says: “I am disappointed that the
National Party in so far as I am concerned needs to dish dirt in order to make points.”
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. [Interruption] I understand the point; members themselves can decide.
Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would the Minister please explain how he can be certain that
the person is a National Party supporter.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order or a point of clarification. Leave has been sought. Members can decide for
themselves whether that document should be admitted.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Despite the fact that the person says they are, and has
obviously put their name to it, the member cannot surely raise objection on the basis that that is two, and that is one
too many!
Madam SPEAKER: That point of order was about as irrelevant as the others. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There
is objection.
Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry Officials—Confidence
4. NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he have confidence in his Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and Trade officials?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): It is early days, but I have found Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
Trade staff to be conscientious and professional, and therefore the answer is yes.
Nandor Tanczos: When the Minister told the House yesterday, in answer to a question on the Convention on Biological
Diversity, that: “there is no such international convention or treaty.” was that because his officials did not tell him
or was it just because he forgot?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The member full well knows that he began with a convention on an issue called “the terminator”
where it comes to seeds. That is what he started with, but where he went after that, I do not know. It puts me in mind
of the old saying: I shot an arrow into the air. Whither it landed, I knew not where”. The fact is, if a member puts
down a primary question and staff prepare the answer to it, that is likely to be what the answer is about.
R Doug Woolerton: Apart from the terminator gene, is the Minister aware of any other substances that effect sterility?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer is yes, for it is generally accepted that smoking cannabis has an impact on driving
capacity, on mental capacity, on social capacity, and on the issue of sterility, which was the primary question asked
yesterday. It can be a real terminator.
Nandor Tanczos: Is the Minister aware of reports that the United States, although not a party to the convention, has
been working through other countries in an attempt to overturn the status quo on terminator technology, and is that what
he meant when he said in a recent speech that New Zealand is working in the interests of the United States in the
Pacific?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: My answer is this: that is not what I said in my recent speech, at all. The member should refer
to it in order to get the honest interpretation from it. What I did say at the time was this: that
Ministry—[Interruption] Well, I can see why honesty would be so foreign to that member, but not to me.
Madam SPEAKER: Please just stick to the answer.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am happy to stick to the answer. The trouble with National members is that they can dish it
out, but they cannot take it. They cannot take it, and we know why: it can be lonely with one’s nose against the window
for all these years.
Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister is attempting to avoid the fact that he does not
know the answer to the question, by obfuscating in this House.
Madam SPEAKER: I asked the Minister to stick to the answer to the question, and I accept that there was certain
distraction and therefore we meandered into other areas. I ask the Minister to address the question.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am well aware of what the United States is doing abroad on this issue. I am also very well
aware that we will soon be sending officials to Brazil on an issue that relates to a conference agenda that was agreed
to by the then National Government way back when Mr Storey was in charge of these affairs. But the real point is this:
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is involved in amalgamating and coordinating the views of various departments.
All those departments have a greater role than it has in respect of the issue the member seeks an answer on—in
particular, the Ministry for the Environment. He has put his question to the wrong Minister.
Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister seems to be unaware that officials of the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs and Trade are, according to their own account, due to present to Cabinet fairly shortly prior to that
meeting. Is he telling us that he is simply a puppet for the Labour Government and does no decision-making of his own?
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate.
Nandor Tanczos: As New Zealand’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, is he concerned that the reputation of New Zealand is
being damaged due to the widespread condemnation of our position in attempting to open the door to terminator
technology, against the wishes of the vast majority of signatories to the convention?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What I am aware of is this: there are very few countries in the world that follow the
prescription of the Greens. That is why Green parties are not in power anywhere in the world that I know of. The real
issue is that we have provisioned a group of people to take part and perform their role at the next conference with
respect to those matters abroad. They are well appraised of the views of the whole range of countries that will be
there, and they will be governed by the domestic policy of this country, not by some policy made on the hoof.
Nandor Tanczos: I seek leave, for the benefit of the Minister, to table the list of parties to the convention that he
referred to—188 parties.
Leave granted.
Nandor Tanczos: I seek leave to table decision 5 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which New Zealand is party
to as a ratified member.
Leave granted.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In the interests of helping that member, I seek leave to table a paper from the convention in
respect of terminator technology, but I cannot, because there is no such convention.
Madam SPEAKER: That wasted the House’s time.
Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to rule, Madam Speaker, on a situation where a Minister
of the Crown gets up and asks for leave to table a paper that does not exist.
Madam SPEAKER: I did note, Mr Hide, that the Minister had wasted the House’s time, and that is not acceptable. I said
that at the time, and I am sorry if you did not hear it.
Rodney Hide: That is not my point, Madam Speaker. Of course it is a waste of time, but it is also an abuse of the
process, because one could seek leave for all sorts of things, and to table reports that do not exist. The problem is
not that it is a waste of time. The point is that it is an abuse of the process to seek leave to table something that
does not exist.
Madam SPEAKER: I take the member’s point, and I would make the point to all members in the House that when they raise
points of order on any matter, those points of order must be relevant to what is in the Standing Orders.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise this with you now—I could have left it until the end of
question time, but Mr Hide has brought up the issue of Mr Peters raising frivolous points of order. If you go back
through the Hansard of this week, you will find that your instruction to the House last week that raising frivolous
points of order should stop has been followed by the National Party. We have not had the sort of protracted time spent
on points of order that we had last week. Mr Peters engaged in at least four of those points of order on Tuesday, in a
number again yesterday, and he is so far up to three today. It seems that whenever he is involved, it is just a matter
of: “Oh well, it’s too bad. It’s a bit of cross-banter, and we’ll let him off.” We do expect to see him be pinged at
some point.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Those members who were paying attention know full well that yesterday the member from the Greens,
Nandor Tanczos, asked a question on a convention in respect of the restriction of the use of genetic technologies. That
is the convention that he asserted exists. He knew full well that there was no such convention, but he stuck to that
argument. Today he wished to switch his argument.
Madam SPEAKER: That is a point of debate.
Gerry Brownlee: If the Minister knew yesterday that there was not one, why did he not tell him?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I did.
Gerry Brownlee: No, you didn’t.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I take Mr Brownlee’s point that my rulings on points of order last week were that we were to try
to restrain ourselves and confine them to facts. I intend in the future to rule very strictly on that, and I put
everyone on notice of that. I do appreciate those members in the House who have been following those rulings. I ask
those who have not been following them to please take note.
Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to check the Hansard record of the exact words that
the Rt Hon Winston Peters used in that point of order, because I think that in referring to his willingness to table a
document, and then telling us that no such document existed, he has come very close to misleading the House. I would
like you to reflect on that point.
Madam SPEAKER: I take the member’s point, but I would like us now to move on. I think every member is on notice.
Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to extend this point of order to and fro, but I ask
you to give consideration to this matter: when a Minister of the Crown uses a point of order to make a political point
that is not a point of order, and to make an allegation against a member, such as Mr Peters has just done against
myself, there is then no opportunity to reply to that, because it is unacceptable to use a point of order to reply to a
political point. I have just tabled a document that demonstrates my point, and used the Standing Orders appropriately,
but what come-back do members such as myself have when a Minister misuses a point of order to make a political attack?
Madam SPEAKER: The member has made a good point. He has obviously got his point of view through on this occasion. Could
we just confine these particular proceedings in the House to questions and answers.
Electricity—Supply
5. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Energy: Does he agree with the statements by Meridian Energy
Chief Executive Keith Turner that electricity supply is “very tenuous” and: “This winter is the tightest we have ever
had as a nation”, the statement by electricity industry consultant Bryan Leyland that “the risk of a severe shortage is
quite high.”, and the supporting statements by Genesis Energy Chief Executive Murray Jackson; if not, why not?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): The Electricity Commission has a published set of assessment criteria that are
intended to assure supply against a 1 in 60-year drought. I am advised that, based on those criteria, although lake
levels are well below average the probability of a power shortage this winter is low.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Noting that the Minister has effectively dismissed the views of Keith Turner and those of the chief
executive of Meridian Energy, Murray Jackson, both of whom this morning at the Commerce Committee—
Hon Paul Swain: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a well-known practice in the House that one begins a
questions with a question word, not “noting”.
Madam SPEAKER: Could we have the question.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the Minister aware that the chief executives of Meridian Energy and Genesis Energy, the
Government’s two biggest power companies, told a select committee this morning that they have no confidence in the
Electricity Commission’s model and that lake levels are at the lowest level ever; why does he not face the reality that
New Zealand is facing a severe electricity crisis?
Hon DAVID PARKER: It will not come as a surprise to the member to know that I do take an interest in lake levels. As a
consequence, I spoke with Mr Turner about lake levels both before and after his comments yesterday. On both occasions he
advised me that although he is concerned about lake levels, he considers that no additional action on the part of the
Electricity Commission is needed at this point.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister say to the House that Keith Turner from Meridian Energy said that no further
action was required, when both he and officials from Genesis Energy told the select committee this morning that the
Government should fire up Whirinaki, a power plant that has been paid for by the consumers of New Zealand, and save
water to ensure that we do not have a crisis this winter; why will the Minister not take that sound advice and do just
that?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I am aware that Dr Turner today suggested that reserve generation at Whirinaki should be brought on at
a lower price point, and it is a matter that I will consider.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Does the Minister recollect, in reference to the last question, that the National Party opposed
the purchase of the Whirinaki power station by the Labour Government?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I most absolutely do. Were it not for the back-up facility at Whirinaki, the situation would be worse
than it is.
Gordon Copeland: What assurances will he give to our senior citizens and families on fixed incomes that an electricity
shortage this winter will not lead to price spikes; and, if it does, how does he expect those on fixed incomes to find
the extra money to pay the power bill—by going deeper into debt or by going cold?
Hon DAVID PARKER: If there were to be a power shortage this winter then we would expect that there would be a spike in
power prices, but we would find that most residential consumers would be protected from that because they are not
exposed to the spot market.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: How does the Minister reconcile his answer that Meridian Energy had told him yesterday that no action
was required by the Government with his answer to the next supplementary question in which he accepted that Meridian
Energy does say that Whirinaki should now be fired up to save water?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Once again the member is confused. What I said in response to the first question was that Mr Turner
advised me that no additional action was required on the part of the Electricity Commission at this stage, in his
opinion.
Jill Pettis: What is the Government doing to address electricity sector issues?
Hon DAVID PARKER: It is abundantly clear to most people that we have put up with National’s ham-fisted design of the
energy sector for long enough. As the Prime Minister said late last year, as a consequence we are developing a National
Energy Strategy that will address these issues, including issues of security of supply, energy efficiency, and renewable
energy sources.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the Minister aware that all of the last three electricity crises in New Zealand showed that the
Government had responded too slowly to lake levels being low, and given that lake levels are now lower than they were in
2003, 2001, and 1993 for the same time of the year, why does he not now do something rather than sit on his hands
waiting for the lights to go out?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The Government already has put in place both reserve generation and the Electricity Commission to
develop models—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: They’re not using it. It’s turned off.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Reserve generation does come in. It has been used this year. The price point at which it comes in is
20c. Mr Turner suggested that that price point should be lower. Of course, National opposed altogether the provision of
any reserve capacity.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the graphs on lake levels that show that New Zealand’s hydro
storage is at the lowest level ever in New Zealand’s history in terms of securing electricity supply.
Leave granted.
Hon DAVID PARKER: I seek leave to table the Electricity Commission assessment of lake levels against the minimum zone
required to achieve security of electricity generation through winter.
Leave granted.
Accident and Emergency Services—Hospital Benchmark Report
6. BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to the Minister of Health: Is he concerned at the findings of the latest hospital
benchmark report, which shows that a majority of hospital emergency departments are struggling to meet target times for
treating sick or injured patients; if not, why not?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes, I am concerned, but at least in part for a different reason from the member,
I suspect. I am concerned about the report as it fails to provide a real or accurate picture of the situation in
emergency departments around the country.
Barbara Stewart: Would he agree that one of the main reasons that more patients need treatment at hospital emergency
departments is the lack of after-hours and emergency services formerly provided by general practitioners; if so, what is
his ministry doing to rectify the situation?
Hon PETE HODGSON: The member should be aware that in many parts of the country the service formerly provided by general
practitioners is still provided by general practitioners. In respect of the second part of the member’s question, as the
member will be aware we have a working party on after-hours care. That working party has made an interim report, which
is out for consultation that is due to conclude shortly.
Ann Hartley: Does he share the concerns of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine that the triage reporting
process is flawed; if so, what will he do to address the problems?
Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, I do share those concerns. At present a person’s waiting time begins when he or she is seen by a
triage nurse, and ends when a doctor begins treatment. From 1 July the waiting time will stop when the treatment is
started by a doctor or a skilled emergency nurse.
Barbara Stewart: Can the Minister assure the House that his ministry will not seek to artificially improve triage times
by simply changing the way in which the start of treatment is recorded, so that we do not find ourselves in the
ridiculous situation whereby patients are recorded as being seen as soon as they begin filling out their Accident
Compensation Corporation forms in the accident and emergency waiting room?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I certainly shall not be part of artificially improving the statistics, but I would put it to the
member that if someone comes in, in need, for example, of resuscitation, which would mean triage 1, and he or she is
immediately resuscitated by a nurse, or resuscitation is begun by a nurse, that person’s waiting time has, in fact, come
to an end. At the moment we record it in such a way that it is not until the doctor is able to see that patient that the
person has somehow begun treatment.
Hon Tony Ryall: What mark out of 10 would the Minister give our hospital emergency departments?
Hon PETE HODGSON: A pretty good mark. Certainly, first out of the five countries—
Hon Tony Ryall: What number?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I have just answered the member’s question in part, and I will justify my answer now.
Hon Tony Ryall: What number?
Hon PETE HODGSON: First out of five. From the five countries that I draw my remarks—that is, Australia, Canada, New
Zealand, UK, and USA, emergency room use in New Zealand is the lowest of all those countries. In respect of the waiting
time in emergency rooms before a person is treated, New Zealand is the lowest of all five nations. In respect of
difficulty in getting care on nights, weekends, and holidays without going to the emergency room, New Zealand is the
lowest of those five nations. So in all of those cases, New Zealand rates No. 1 out of five. If the member wants to make
that a mark out of 10, I will find another five countries to compare New Zealand with and I guess we will beat them,
too. But we are the best of five nations. If the member has prejudices about the quality of our health care, he would do
well to have them better informed by the facts.
Hon Tony Ryall: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that the Minister of Health himself is heading to be a
consumer of the pharmaceutical budget with that sort of outrage, but the question was what mark out of 10 he would give
emergency services in hospitals.
Madam SPEAKER: As the member knows, the question cannot prescribe an answer like yes or no, or 1 out of 20.
Hon Tony Ryall: What mark out of 10 would he give the health system generally?
Hon PETE HODGSON: A better mark now than was ever the case in the 1990s.
Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a newspaper interview where New Zealand’s Minister of Health, after 6 years of a
Labour Government, and $4 billion extra, rated the New Zealand health system at 5½ out of 10.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.
Transit New Zealand—State Highway Funding
7. Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Transport: Can he guarantee that the increased funding
that will be made available to the National Land Transport Programme will be enough to ensure the completion of the
August 2005 Transit New Zealand 10-year State highway forecast as published?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): I am assured by the Minister of Finance that that is his intention.
Hon Maurice Williamson: Can the Minister, or anybody in the House, have any confidence in a process that had the chief
executive of Transit asked on Morning Report: “Have you heard anything from the Government that they are going to make
up the $685 million shortfall?”, and the chief executive replied: “I’ve only heard that advice this morning as you did
on the radio.”, and is he worried that if the chief executive had been in the shower at the time, he may not have known
the money was coming?
Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I am not worried by that. As I said before, I am assured by the Minister of Finance that it is his
intention that we increase the funding to the State highway budget so as to meet the projections that were forecast in
August last year.
David Bennett: How does the Minister of Transport explain the comments of Hamilton West MP, Martin Gallagher, in the
Waikato Times on 1 March that: “It’s my credibility … You can imagine how I feel. I don’t like it one bit … I am just
aghast at what’s gone on … It’s like groundhog day … Transit has put eggs on a lot of our faces.”, in regard to
Transit’s 10-year plan for Hamilton, when both the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance knew late last year
that Transit would be making such arrangements in the latest 10-year plan?
Madam SPEAKER: I remind members, even of the same party, that if they interject during questions they put themselves at
risk.
Hon DAVID PARKER: I am sure that the member for Hamilton West—Mr Gallagher—the local councils, and the local population
in Hamilton will be relieved and pleased when they see the final form of the State highway plan in June.
Martin Gallagher: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave for the member to table that Waikato Times
article so that the House can clearly understand that the last three or four sentences attributed to me were not
correct.
Madam SPEAKER: No, the member cannot seek leave on behalf of someone else.
Peter Brown: Does the Minister accept that had the Hon Maurice Williamson, when he was Minister of Transport, not
stopped the gradual transfer of petrol tax from the Crown account into the roading account, there would now be billions
of dollars—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question being asked by Mr Brown is clearly outside the
Standing Orders. The Minister cannot be responsible for things that were done, or were not done, last century. Right
from the beginning, the question was clearly out of order.
Madam SPEAKER: Would the member like to rephrase his question so that it is specific to the Minister’s responsibility.
Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware that had the Hon Maurice Williamson, when he was Minister of Transport, not stopped
the gradual transfer of petrol tax from the Crown account into the roading account, there would be billions of dollars
more in the roading account, and that our roading problems would be much less severe?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I am aware that, at the time, National blocked proposals from New Zealand First to divert more of the
petrol tax into roading rather than the consolidated account. I am not surprised by that because, even at the last
election, National was saying that it would not divert the fund until after 6 years.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is interesting that you allowed that question, after Nick
Smith had questioned whether it was appropriate. It seems to me that it would be just as appropriate for someone on this
side of the House to take a trivial point of order and suggest that the transfer was not made, and that the Government
could pay for the absolutely dopey policies of New Zealand First that were part of the price of coalition, and then ask
the question of how much more funding that should go to roads is being diverted now to pay the price of dopey policies
and coalition arrangements with New Zealand First.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: First of all, I am appalled that the member described the abolition of the surcharge on
superannuation as a dopey policy. It was, in fact, the main condition New Zealand First imposed for coalition in 1996.
But, more substantially, although the Minister has no responsibility for what Mr Maurice Williamson did—indeed, most of
his colleagues have denied they have responsibility for that—the reality is that the consequences of that decision may
still be current, and they are the responsibility of the current Minister of Transport.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My complaint is twofold. Firstly, Mr Brownlee got up and
added a whole lot of words into his supposedly valid complaint, and talked about New Zealand First’s dopey
policies—funny that; National stole them all at the last election. My second point—
Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please come to the point.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, my real point is that Mr Bennett—[Interruption]
Madam SPEAKER: Members will come to order, or it will be a very empty House soon. I know the prospect is entertaining
for some, but will the member please address the point succinctly.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: My second complaint is that Mr Bennett got up and, I believe, purported to read from a newspaper
when that newspaper article, in the way he recited it, simply does not exist. Now, that is a very serious offence in
this House, and if he wishes to dislodge that claim, he can table the document he said he quoted from.
Madam SPEAKER: He may well do that, if he is given an opportunity to do so, but it is too late, because the House has
addressed that point of order. The point I want to come back to is the point raised by Mr Brownlee. When questions are
asked, certainly historical comparisons are permitted—provided, of course, that they relate to the Minister’s portfolio.
In that particular instance, they did.
Hon Mark Gosche: Is the Minister aware that if he had been looking in 1999 for a 10-year State highway forecast for
highways to be built in Auckland, it would have looked like this blank sheet of paper—absolutely bare, with nothing on
it—and if the then Minister, Mr Williamson had dropped it, it would have gone altogether.
Hon DAVID PARKER: As the—[Interruption]
Madam SPEAKER: It is very difficult to hear. I ask the Hon Mark Gosche, please, to rephrase his question in terms of
ministerial responsibility—and I wish all members to hear that so I do not have to ask them twice, because they will
lose their questions if I do.
Hon Mark Gosche: Is the Minister aware that if he had been looking in 1999 for a 10-year forecast for State highways to
be built in Auckland in the following 10 years, it would have looked like a blank sheet of paper, and had the Hon
Maurice Williamson then dropped the forecast, it would have gone altogether?
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That question cannot possibly be in order; otherwise it would
lead the House to all sorts of questions of all sorts of irrelevant and extraneous matters. The question must be asked:
why can a man of Mr Gosche’s experience—a former Minister of Transport—not ask something that is more helpful to someone
on his own side?
Madam SPEAKER: I agree with the member, so that question is out of order.
Dr Paul Hutchison: How can the Minister justify the recent announcement of further delays to the upgrading of New
Zealand’s most deadly highway, State Highway 2 between Pôkeno and Thames, where over 40 lives have been lost in less
than 5 years, giving it the name the “killer highway”; and how many more lives will be lost before his Government
commits to a four-lane expressway over that section of State Highway 2?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I am informed that work has already commenced on that stretch of highway. But, further, I note that
the final outcome of the 10-year State highway forecast will not be known until June.
Dr Paul Hutchison: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked a very clear question of how the Minister could
justify the delays, and he in no way—
Madam SPEAKER: No. The Minister did address the question. That is not a legitimate point of order.
David Bennett: What reports has the Minister of Transport received from the Hamilton City Council regarding a breach of
contract by Transit in its recently announced 10-year plan, due to the council having taken actions in reliance on its
agreement with Transit to complete the Avalon Drive bypass in the 2006-07 year; and what does the Minister intend to do
about that?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I am, of course, aware of dissatisfaction in the Hamilton area with the current draft State highway
plan. I envisage people will be much more pleased when they see the final version.
Martin Gallagher: Can the Minister confirm—notwithstanding the hard-working Hamilton West member’s frustration at
aspects of Transit’s processes, which is shared by the Hon Trevor Mallard and other Ministers—that road funding in the
Waikato has increased significantly under this Government?
Hon DAVID PARKER: That is, indeed, true, and will be even more so when the final State highway forecast comes out in
June.
Martin Gallagher: To clear up any ambiguity, I seek leave to table the Waikato Times article alluded to by the member
for Hamilton West.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would just like clarification from the member who is
seeking leave as whether he said in that article that this was another groundhog day.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, and given, of course, that we are not having trivial points of order, that
is out of order. Leave was sought to table that document.
Leave granted.
World Trade Organization—Viet Nam
8. H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Assistant Speaker—Labour) to the Minister of Trade: What feedback has he received from the
outcome of New Zealand’s negotiations with Viet Nam over its accession to the World Trade Organization?
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade): I have received very positive feedback, in particular from our major exporters such
as the dairy, meat, wool, and seafood industries. Fonterra’s estimate, for example, is that New Zealand’s dairy
producers will be better off by around $12 million as a result of the negotiations. Although it is never possible to get
all that one wants from negotiations, New Zealand clearly achieved significantly improved market access for both goods
and services. I congratulate Jim Sutton and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade team on that result.
H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister tell the House what the significance of achieving those outcomes is?
Hon PHIL GOFF: The outcome was significant because our trading relationship with Viet Nam is of growing importance. Our
current goods exports, for example, are $140 million and rising, and Viet Nam is the second-fastest-growing economy in
South-east Asia. That means that our service exports also have real potential there. These talks were, in fact, a
one-off opportunity for New Zealand, and ended with a deal, after hard negotiations, that was regarded as fair and
acceptable by both sides.
H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister tell the House what areas, apart from dairying, will benefit from the outcome of
the negotiations?
Hon PHIL GOFF: A reduction in final tariff rates was achieved for beef, sheepmeat, fish and seafood, fruit and
vegetables, paper, and other manufactured products. Services in the areas of education, agriculture, and the environment
will also be significant beneficiaries from that agreement.
Small Business, Minister—Employment Issues
9. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister for Small Business: Does she stand by her reported comment that:
“Unfortunately one of the main reasons why many very small businesses, ones with no employees, won’t take on staff is
because they’re frightened of employment issues and of being subjected to professional grievance claims.”?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister for Small Business): Yes, although I suspect the journalist wrote the word “professional”
when I was referring to personal grievance claims.
Katherine Rich: What specific changes to employment law will she be promoting this year to assist small-business people
who will not take on new staff because they are frightened of employment issues and of being subjected to professional
grievance claims?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I have yet to meet with the Small Business Advisory Group in order to discuss the fact that it has
included its recommendation for a personal grievance - free period in the second of its reports. I have already told the
group that I will not advocate for that solution.
Katherine Rich: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question asked the Minister what specific changes in
employment law she would be promoting this year. She did not address that in any way.
Madam SPEAKER: The Minister did address it through her answer that she would be talking about that question with the
group concerned.
Maryan Street: Did the Small Business Advisory Group include any other recommendations on employment issues apart from
the recommendation of a personal grievance free - period; if so, what was the Government’s response?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes Recommendation five requested that a complete checklist of issues to be considered when hiring
an employee be made quickly and cheaply available to small businesses. The Government has, through the Department of
Labour, produced a How to Hire Guide for Employers. As I reported to the House yesterday the Small Business Advisory
Group gave the Government 10 out of 10 for this response.
Katherine Rich: Can the House take her previous answer to mean that she will be doing nothing in this area, and was she
correctly reported on 21 November 2005 in an article stating: “Ms Dalziel says the employment arena has developed to a
point at which decent employers who have dealt with difficult employees perfectly appropriately are being taken to the
cleaners by employees,”; if so, what specific changes to employment law will she be promoting this year to make a
difference to those small-business people?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I know that some people think it is OK to sack someone without warning, without reason, and without
an opportunity to meet the employer’s requirements. I do not. I have made it absolutely clear that I will work with the
Small Business Advisory Group to find other solutions, as I am not prepared to advocate for that option.
Peter Brown: Is the Minister concerned that there are organisations encouraging the promotion of personal grievance
claims on a “no gain, no pay” basis; if she is concerned, what plans does she have to address the issue?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes. I have made a number of comments about the concerns I have that there are employment
consultants in this country who work on a contingency basis, who say “no win, no pay”, and who are not interested in the
worker getting his or her job back and in working with the employer to get a good result in mediation. All they want is
enough money so that they can take their share—a fifty-fifty split, or whatever they can get. That is not in the
interests of small business, and it is certainly not in the interests of this country.
Maryan Street: Does the second Small Business Advisory Group report state that the only solutions to the problems it
describes are the ones that the group proposes?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: No, the report states that the group recognises that they are not the only solutions. However, the
group thinks they would prove to be effective ones. My concern with the personal grievance - free period is that it
takes the focus off the employment relationship, and especially that access to mediation, which is often so successful,
is lost. I again express the view that mediation is undermined when employment consultants working on a contingency
basis work to obtain a high financial settlement, rather than repairing and promoting an ongoing relationship.
Dr Wayne Mapp: Is the Government aware that Business New Zealand, in its publication just last week entitled Skills
Perspectives, has said that New Zealand should have a probationary period for employment law in order to encourage
businesses to employ groups with untapped skills; and how will she deal with that concern?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I am well aware that that member and others have expressed the view that this will help new
migrants, young people with few qualifications, and people re-entering the workforce. If that is help, I would like to
see hindrance.
Dr Wayne Mapp: Why will the Government not allow a full select committee consideration in order to examine all the
arguments of the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill, which is a member’s bill, so that these
issues can be properly considered, instead of the cavalier approach that the Minister is apparently taking?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: My understanding of parliamentary proceedings is that it is the House that decides whether a bill is
referred to a select committee.
Environment Court—Whangamata Marina
10. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Conservation: Will he stand by the decision of the
Environment Court made in October 2005 to approve the Whangamata marina development; if not, why not?
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation): I am due to make a decision on that matter early next week.
Sandra Goudie: Does he believe in the integrity of the Environment Court and its processes; if so, why is he effectively
allowing the relitigation of the decision made by the Environment Court?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: When I make my final decision, I will take into account only those matters that are relevant under the
Resource Management Act passed by the previous National Government .
Jill Pettis: Has the Minister seen any reports of illegal Resource Management Act activity in the Coromandel area?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: Yes, I have a report from the Waikato Times dated 26 September 2005, stating that MP Sandra Goudie was
involved in an illegal action in clearing mangroves. The article states that she was not worried about possible legal
action and she would do it again. I believe in following the law; it seems that member does not.
Eric Roy: Given that he will be making a decision next week, does he consider that a half-day of lobbying is equal to
over 10 years of judicial process; if it is, where will the justice be for the applicants and the people of Whangamata?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I repeat: when I make my final decision I will take into account only those matters that are relevant
under the Resource Management Act passed by the previous National Government.
Sandra Goudie: What implications does he think there will be for the integrity of the Environment Court and its
processes in the future, if he vetoes the Environment Court’s decision regarding the Whangamata marina development?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: Unlike that member, who has a history of breaking the law concerning Resource Management Act
processes, I intend to make my decision strictly according to the Resource Management Act passed by the previous
National Government.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Would the Minister like to explain to the Opposition that the matters he is required to consider in
exercising his discretion under the Resource Management Act, under the coastal plan, are different from those considered
by the Environment Court?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: Yes, I thank the member for that question. Indeed, they are different. I would be happy to invite the
member for Coromandel to come and see me, and I will explain that to her in simple language.
Sandra Goudie: I seek leave to table the editorial from this morning’s New Zealand Herald, which is headed: “Minister’s
veto power an outrage”.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I seek leave to table an article in the Waikato Times entitled: “MP joins illegal mangrove blitz”.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the decision of the Environment Court in respect of the
Whangamata marina, which the Minister is now considering vetoing.
Leave granted.
Accident Compensation Corporation—Performance, International Reports
11. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) to the Minister for ACC: Has she received any recent reports assessing ACC’s
performance internationally?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC): Yes, as a matter of fact I have. A joint Australian - New Zealand report on workers
compensation comparisons shows that although 8 years ago the Accident Compensation Corporation’s levies and Australian
levies were similar, New Zealand rates have been steadily decreasing and are now, on average, just over one-third of
Australia’s rates. This gives New Zealand a clear competitive advantage in most industries.
Social Development and Employment, Minister—Allegations
12. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she still believe Hon David Benson-Pope “to be an honest man
who answered the questions to the best of his recollection”; if so, why?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: I thank the member for his question,
which was referred to him by the National Party. Yes, because she believes that he answered the question to the best of
his abilities.
Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been trying to understand how the first comment had
anything to do with the answer, and what it was to do with.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I was just pointing out that this was a question set down for the National Party. It was
transferred to the ACT party by the National Party.
Hon Members: What?
Rodney Hide: No. We swapped Tuesdays.
Madam SPEAKER: I think all this is irrelevant. We will stick to questions and answers.
Rodney Hide: Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether she believes that the Minister was telling the truth when
he said on 12 May in Parliament: “I have not been guilty of, or involved in, any inappropriate behaviour in my 24 years
as a secondary school teacher. As well, I am not aware of any complaint of any kind.”, and if the Prime Minister
believes that the Minister was telling the truth, could the Prime Minister explain in what way that was a truthful
statement?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister said in an answer to a previous question in relation to the matter of the
complaint that she believes it an error of judgment that Mr Benson-Pope did not view the parent’s letter as a complaint
because it did not breach school policy and was not dealt with as a disciplinary matter. It is a fact that it did not
breach school policy and it was not dealt with as a disciplinary matter.
Hon Phil Goff: Given the testimony both by the principal and indeed by the students who made complaints that Mr
Benson-Pope never, for example, entered the shower room, and that privacy of students was never compromised, to what
does he attribute the repeated innuendo by Mr Hide, other than desperate political opportunism and dishonesty?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I believe that there has been concerted—
Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would ask you to reflect on that question and ask yourself how
it can possibly be in order for a—[Interruption] Well, they can try to interrupt me during a point of order—and I notice
they can get away with it.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry—everyone has got away with it today. That will be it for this week, and the next week we come
back after the recess will be a new week.
Rodney Hide: How can it possibly be in order for a Minister to get up and ask another Minister and sort of try to make
an inference and suggest that somehow my questioning is dishonest?
Madam SPEAKER: Was there an implication of dishonesty?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Of course there was.
Madam SPEAKER: If there was, then I ask the Minister to withdraw it.
Hon Phil Goff: I withdraw that aspect of the question but mentioning political opportunism is absolutely within the
Standing Orders, and desperate political opportunism particularly suits that member. [Interruption]
Madam SPEAKER: “Political opportunism” is not an unparliamentary term in the context of what we are debating here.
Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. When the Minister withdrew his answer, he should not have
qualified it after it was withdrawn, and that should be ruled out of order.
Madam SPEAKER: I agree. The Minister should just withdraw and apologise and then we can proceed. There will be no
further comment.
Hon Phil Goff: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Does that mean I have to ask the
question again in respect of political opportunism, because it is not clear from your ruling whether I need to repeat
that question?
Madam SPEAKER: No. The question stands with that deletion.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is clear that there has been a concerted campaign of continuous misrepresentation of what
actually happened. In the case of the issue relating to the showers—[Interruption] I have the microphone and none of
those member can be heard outside this place—the girls themselves and all other evidence is clear that Mr Benson-Pope
never entered the showers and never saw any naked girls. When last night on television that assertion on TV3 was
repeated and then the Prime Minister’s reference to an error of judgment relating to a different matter was run back to
back, that just shows how concerted this campaign has been, particularly between TV3 and Mr Hide. I challenge Mr Hide to
tell the public of New Zealand how much taxpayers’ money has been spent on him flying to Dunedin and back to try to
gather together—[Interruption.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: —his sleazy series of accusations.
Madam SPEAKER: Did everyone hear that answer or must it be repeated?
Rodney Hide: I missed the last bit, and I think it concerned me. I would quite like to hear it.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I challenge Mr Hide to tell the taxpayers of this country how much money has been spent by them
paying for his airfares to go backwards and forwards to Dunedin and elsewhere to gather evidence for his sleazy
campaign.
Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister believe that any complaint of any kind was lodged against David Benson-Pope in
his 24 years as a teacher?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes; it is clear a complaint was lodged.
Hon Phil Goff: Given the previous answer, does the Minister believe that the scurrilous allegation made by Mr Hide
yesterday in this House was not only wrong but libellous, and is he aware that that member has ever had the courage to
say it outside this House?
Madam SPEAKER: That question is not in order.
Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would have thought—
Madam SPEAKER: I have just ruled it out of order, Mr Hide, so I have addressed your point.
Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister confirm that she has just told the House that she does believe there were
complaints of any kind lodged against David Benson-Pope during his 24 years as a teacher?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As the Prime Minister made clear, she believed that Mr Benson-Pope had made an error of judgment
in not viewing—[Interruption]—that member should keep quiet—the parent’s letter as a complaint because the matter did
not breach school policy and was not dealt with as a disciplinary matter. The Prime Minister has already made that
statement to the House.
Hon Bill English: Is it now the case that the Prime Minister believes that David Benson-Pope knew about the bullying
complaints and the school camp complaints but did not reveal that to Parliament because he believed they were not formal
and serious complaints; or does she believe that he just misled Parliament, as everyone else in this House believes?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I reject the last assertion. There are many members of this House who do not believe—
Hon Bill English: He lied.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: He did not lie. The only person in this House I know of who has actually been found guilty of
lying is Dr Nick Smith, to a court. The court found he had lied to it.
Hon Steve Maharey: Has the Minister seen any other reports relating to members of Parliament and school camps?
Hon Member: Get out the dirt.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, not dirt at all, just the following extraordinary exchange on television: “Judith, you’d be
the first person leaping up and down if a school did this and something happened and a paedophile was on the camp.”;
Judith Collins: “No, actually, I wouldn’t really.” That was only a few nights ago, on television.
Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to table the entire transcript of
that particular interview, so that my position can be properly represented.
Leave granted.
Rodney Hide: Who does the Prime Minister believe: David Benson-Pope, who told the House yesterday that he did not slap a
pupil on the thigh, when it was against policy and against the lie; or Geana Earl, who went on camera and said that he
did, and that it was her thigh, and a second witness to the slap, whom I have spoken to today? If he believes the
Minister over these two former pupils, what is the basis of that belief?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen the reply that was drafted by the school to be sent, which also cited evidence from
the accompanying female schoolteacher that no slap was observed to have occurred.
Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister was actually quite clever not to address the question
and say whether he believed the Minister or the pupils. Can we take it that, in fact, the Prime Minister is not prepared
to stand up and say that they believe this Minister any more?
Madam SPEAKER: Remember, we are not having these trivial points of order now. The Minister did actually address the
question. It may not have been to the satisfaction of the member, or the answer he wished, but it did address the
question being asked.
( Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing. For corrected transcripts, please visit: http://www.clerk.parliament.govt.nz/hansard )