Questions and Answers - Tuesday, 27 February 2007

Questions to Ministers

Fiscal Management—Appropriate Settings

1. SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What reports, if any, has he received on the appropriate settings for good fiscal management?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): [Interruption] I am so pleased to see the National Party applauding Labour Party questions. I have received numerous such reports. Standard and Poor’s Asia-Pacific Sovereign Report Card highlights the Government’s solid fiscal profile. It follows on from Standard and Poor’s report last year that concluded the Government’s programme of debt reduction provision for future superannuation costs has made us one of the best placed nations in the world to cope with the costs of an ageing population. The report also noted that large-scale tax cuts would be “very short-sighted”, and questioned whether they would be sustainable.

Shane Jones: What reports has he seen on alternative approaches to fiscal management?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen reports suggesting the Government runs far too tight a fiscal position, reflected in excessively large Budget surpluses, and it should be significantly loosened up to $11 billion a year. I have also seen reports suggesting that the current fiscal position is far too loose and should be tightened, meaning we should be aiming for much larger surpluses. The first of those reports is from John Key and the second is from his co-leader Bill English.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister agree with the assessment of the Governor of the Reserve Bank that his current fiscal policy is, and I quote from the Reserve Bank’s statement, “quite expansionary”, and can he confirm to the House that this means his big spending plans in the run-up to the next election are one of the things that will cause interest rates to rise for householders?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I note, first of all, that the member has already called, in a statement only last week, for the Governor of the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates further. I note further that the member has promised a $200 million a year reduction in spending on tertiary education, without saying where it will come from, and I note that it is completely at odds with his leader, who not only promised large tax cuts but today promised another $60 million to $90 million a year.

Gordon Copeland: What reports has the Minister seen on new developments in fiscal policy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Just today I have seen reports suggesting that a major new policy on welfare would be released. I was somewhat surprised when I read the actual reports of this major new policy, which is simply the National Party’s submission on the tax and charities discussion document released by my colleague the Hon Peter Dunne earlier this month. It is, of course, Mr Dunne who has been leading the charge in terms of changes to the charities taxation regime.

Foreign Affairs, Minister—Confidence

2. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in her Minister of Foreign Affairs; if so, why?

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

Hon Bill English: Was Mr Peters, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, speaking for the New Zealand Government when he stated: “There would be no advantage to an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.”, and “… circumstances would slide into total chaos, if that was to happen.”; if he was not speaking for the New Zealand Government, what is the position of the New Zealand Government?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Mr Peters stated: “I will give you my opinion.”

Keith Locke: Is it not peculiar that our Minister of Foreign Affairs is speaking out in favour of more young Americans being sent to be killed, or to kill, in Iraq, when our Government has quite rightly—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is one thing to tolerate mischievous journalists seeking to misrepresent what I said; it is quite something else within this House to have a member say what he just said—which is totally not true.

Madam SPEAKER: I ask the member to rephrase his question, please.

Keith Locke: Oh, I thought it was—what was not true? [Interruption] I will rephrase it.

Madam SPEAKER: The member raised a point of order. I have ruled on the point of order. The member said that was not what he said in the statement.

Keith Locke: Yes, I will put it in a different way that might satisfy the member more.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.

Keith Locke: Is it not peculiar that our Minister of Foreign Affairs is speaking out for a continuation of the Iraq war, which will result in more young Americans killing and being killed in Iraq, when our Government—quite rightly—has kept well clear of the Iraq war?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I drew no such inference from what the Minister said.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports about the primary questioner’s credentials regarding the question of troop withdrawals or of his views regarding National’s spokesperson on foreign affairs, and of the National leader’s foreign affairs crisis, which has seen him—despite having several so-called foreign policy experts within his caucus—take the extraordinary step of setting up an independent thinktank, including Jim Bolger—

Gerry Brownlee: You don’t deal with this.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When I am talking, you keep quiet—OK?

Gerry Brownlee: You don’t deal with that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no. When I am talking, the member keeps quiet. Point of order—

Madam SPEAKER: No—please be seated. If the member engages with chit-chat, then there will be disorder in the House. Would the member please just ask his question. The ruling is that reasonable interjections are permitted.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports about the primary questioner’s credentials regarding the question of troop withdrawals or of his views regarding National’s spokesperson on foreign affairs, and of the National leader’s foreign affairs crisis, which has seen him—despite having several so-called foreign policy experts within his caucus—

Gerry Brownlee: She’s only responsible for you.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —well, no one is responsible for you—

Gerry Brownlee: That’s right. I’m responsible for myself.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I mean, no one is responsible for that member. In fact, after the last leadership crisis he got demoted. In fact, he jumped before he got pushed, and made it seem like some magnanimous act. But to carry on—[Interruption] Look, this is not a woodwork lesson; this is about foreign policy—take the extraordinary step of setting up an independent thinktank, including Jim Bolger, Jenny Shipley, and other doubtful, dubious foreign affairs luminaries?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: My understanding of Mr English’s credentials was that he supported the war—he got up in this House on 18 March and stated that New Zealand should be supporting the coalition of the willing. As to where the National Party gets its foreign policy advice from I can only agree with Mr English, who stated in writing to Dr Brash: “You need to know now that the experienced people you have will not work in a Government run by Mr McCully.”—who is, of course, the foreign affairs spokesperson. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: It is impossible for the member to be able to be heard when he puts his question.

Hon Bill English: Can she tell the House whether the New Zealand Government agrees or disagrees with the position advocated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that “… circumstances would slide into total chaos” if US forces withdrew from Iraq?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The New Zealand Government, and most parties represented in this House, did not support the war in Iraq. It does not have troops there, and it is not getting involved in a debate about what other nations should do with their troops. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I asked for quiet so that the Hon Bill English could put his question. I ask for quiet from the Opposition while the Hon Phil Goff puts his question.

Hon Phil Goff: Has she seen the comment that New Zealand was too far away from Iraq to judge the best course of action; who made that comment, and is it consistent with what his co-leader and other members of his party have said before and since?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I understand it is Mr Key’s position that Iraq is simply too far away. That did not stop Mr English committing his party to supporting the war.

Hon Bill English: Can the House take it from the answer the Prime Minister gave to my previous question that she does not know whether the New Zealand Government agrees with the statements made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and what confidence can New Zealand or any foreign Government have in that Minister if she cannot back statements publicly that he made publicly about New Zealand’s position?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: In a Government I lead, a Minister from another party is entitled to express an opinion. That may be novel to the member.

Hon Bill English: So how are foreign Governments and New Zealand voters to know whether the Minister of Foreign Affairs is expressing a personal opinion, when he made these statements in an official press conference after an official meeting in his official capacity as Minister of Foreign Affairs with the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Australia; and in what circumstances can we ever expect Winston Peters to actually articulate Government policy?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The short answer is: a lot more easily than one would find out what the current position of the National Party is on Iraq.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the positions on this side of the House on non-involvement in Iraq have, in fact, been consistent, whereas the positions taken on the same question by the National Party have been multiple and contradictory?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I can certainly confirm that. Indeed, I see some people taking a range of positions from supporting our sending troops in 2003, to claiming in December last year that they never supported our sending troops. Both positions were taken by John Key—and, no doubt, by the party’s co-leader, Bill English.

Madam SPEAKER: Point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I tell the member to keep quiet—that is the last time I tell him that. Madam Speaker, this is a question.

Madam SPEAKER: Is this a point of order or a supplementary question?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is now a point of order. I was going to ask a question, but it is now a point of order. Madam Speaker, although you have appeared to allow some intervention by way of statements from members of parties when someone is putting a question, surely that is not allowed. And if I had been about to make a point of order, the member should never have opened his mouth in the first place. That is all I am saying. I rose to ask a question and I would have liked to be able to actually put the thing before Mr Smith—who always has these psychological problems anyway—

Madam SPEAKER: That is an entirely inappropriate comment about another member, as the member knows. What the member has asked for is that members show a little bit of restraint and courtesy so that we can all hear what the question is. The noise was such that I thought the member was originally asking for a point of order. Would the member please ask his question succinctly.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that if you consider the comment just made by Mr Peters, you will find it appropriate for him to withdraw and apologise for that remark. Given that you are asking everybody to draw a bit of breath and give people a fair go, that remark is hardly in line with what he has just offered to the House.

Madam SPEAKER: Did the member take offence at the comment? The member does take offence. Is the member asking for the other member to withdraw?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. It is totally untrue and unfair.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I apologise for saying that the member had psychological problems.

Madam SPEAKER: The member knows that that is out of order. [Interruption] The member will sit down or he will be out of this Chamber. The member knows well enough that in these circumstances a member merely withdraws and apologises—he or she does not repeat the allegation. If there is any more of that, the member will be out of the Chamber. Would he please just ask his supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Sorry, the member must withdraw and apologise. That is it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise. It is done. Can the Prime Minister contrast the situation now of someone in the Government who, as a Minister, can give an honest opinion on a tragic humanitarian problem, whether it be in Afghanistan or Sudan, and that of someone who rose in a National caucus meeting, asked a simple question like: “What has the leader been doing?”, and got sacked out of caucus? [Interruption] That is the contrast.

Madam SPEAKER: I am trying to see where the ministerial responsibility is. [Interruption] I am sorry, I have ruled on that matter. If the member wishes to ask another supplementary question, he may do so after the Hon Bill English, whom I call for this supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If you are to allow the primary question and all others to be based on the precept of one’s opinion, then surely I am allowed to ask a similar question based on opinion, as well.

Madam SPEAKER: No, what the member was asking for, as I heard it, was a comparison. There is no ministerial responsibility in those circumstances. The member may wish to reflect on how he can ask a question that is within the bounds of the Standing Orders.

Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister recall an assurance given by the Hon Phil Goff to the Australian Foreign Minister that “policy from Winston will not be policy spun off the top of anybody’s head” but will be the policy of the Labour-led Government; and, given that that assurance appears to have been breached, has she or her officials been in contact with the Australian Government to explain to it that when Mr Peters speaks at official press conferences after official meetings, he is probably not expressing the views of the New Zealand Labour - led Government?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I said in response to an earlier answer, Mr Peters made it very clear that it was his opinion. I state further that it was an honest opinion about a tragic situation. We are not used to hearing honest opinions from some others in this House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister received any reports as to the wisdom of decision making when members of Parliament give an opinion that might affect the governance of the day—such as, for example, a case when a Minister gave his honest opinion on a very tragic circumstance and how the world might help its improvement—or, by way of similar contrast, someone asking what the leader is doing, then being fired straight out of the National caucus?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I repeat that I believe the Minister gave an honest opinion about a tragic situation. Apparently honest opinions about the leader of the National Party lead to one’s expulsion from the caucus. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: It is difficult when members of the Hon Bill English’s party interject to the extent that it is difficult to hear him.

Hon Bill English: If, as the Prime Minister states, the Minister of Foreign Affairs simply espoused an honest opinion about a tragic situation, then why did she not say that yesterday instead of denying that it was anything to do with the Government; and, if it was an honest opinion about a tragic situation, can she now take this chance to tell the House her honest opinion about this tragic situation?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I repeat that New Zealand has no troops there, and the New Zealand Government is not telling other nations how to run their policies there.

Hon Bill English: If the New Zealand Government will not tell other nations what they should be doing with their troops in Iraq, has she now instructed the Minister of Foreign Affairs to stop giving the impression that he is speaking on behalf of the New Zealand Government in telling other nations what to do with their troops, or is he to be allowed to continue giving his personal opinion wherever he goes, anywhere in the world?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: What a terrible thing it is for someone to state: “It is my opinion.”, and then to be damned by the National Opposition, which expels people from its caucus for stating an honest opinion about a hopeless Leader of the Opposition. We have just heard from the former hopeless Leader of the Opposition. The other one has deigned not to be here to speak on this.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I ask the Prime Minister, in the interests of exactitude, whether it is a fact that the New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs gave no opinion or view whatsoever on an exit strategy or a withdrawal of troops from Iraq, short term or long term, but was speaking about something else entirely?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That would be my interpretation. The Minister spoke about February 2007 and the situation as he saw it.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a survey by World Public Opinion of Iraqi public opinion, which shows that 78 percent Iraqis think that the US military presence is provoking more conflict than it is preventing.

Leave granted.

Housing—Land Supply

3. GORDON COPELAND (United Future) to the Minister of Housing: Does he agree that there is a mismatch between the supply of and demand for land for new housing in New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): In some cases land supply may not have kept up with demand, but the evidence is mixed. It would be foolhardy to suggest that simply freeing up more land will solve our housing affordability problems. Freeing land for speculators and large, expensive housing developments will not solve the affordability question.

Gordon Copeland: Can the Minister understand the despair felt by many of today’s young families about ever owning their own home when they hear stories from their parents of how during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, young families while still in their 20s were able to buy a new home because entire areas such as Wainuiōmata and Newlands in Wellington, and entire suburbs such as Hillsborough in Auckland, were subdivided and a section could be purchased for little more than 1 year’s salary; and was not the original intention of the Resource Management Act to make the process of subdivision easier, not harder?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I can understand those concerns by people wishing to purchase their first home. I could also, of course, remind the member that a lot of vacant land was within the metropolitan urban limit at that time. Our city of Auckland of 1.4 million people sprawls over one of the largest metropolitan areas in the world with one of the lowest densities. To consider opening up more land compounds the question of infrastructure, roads, sewerage, transport, etc.

Lynne Pillay: What is the Government doing to increase the supply of land for housing?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: We are doing lots. We have funded research into local housing markets to reveal all the factors in play. We have developed new mixed housing estates, which offer both affordable and social housing—for example, at Weymouth, Papakura, and Hobsonville. We are working with local government to assist it to encourage the development of affordable housing such as the proposal that the Queenstown Lakes District Council is currently consulting on.

Phil Heatley: Does he stand by his statement that “housing affordability is an issue preoccupying hundreds of thousands of young households around the country.”; if so, is he really going to build hundreds of thousands of houses for them at Hobsonville or elsewhere, run equity schemes for hundreds of thousands of lucky families, or provide hundreds of thousands of State houses for every last one of them as his solution, and is it welfare that these young families are really looking for?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Housing affordability is certainly something that is exercising a lot of people, much of it concern for children and grandchildren. Many of those children and grandchildren, through employment and saving, will, of course, meet their own housing needs. Some people, particularly in high-value markets such as Auckland, will face challenges, and that is why the Government has brought in things such as the Welcome Home Loan scheme, and next year, of course, we will be developing a pilot in shared equity.

Gordon Copeland: Bearing in mind the Prime Minister’s statement last night about housing supply, will the Government be involving Treasury in a comprehensive economic evaluation of the relationship between planning and other restraints on the subdivision of land for new housing, and the cost of land, with the clear goal of ensuring that the dream of homeownership can once again become the norm for today’s young families?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: We already have officials working on a variety of streams of work—for example, the shared equity programme, and the Hobsonville development—where we are addressing these questions. I remind the House again that this is a complex issue; every Western country is facing it, particularly in major metropolitan areas.

Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I specifically asked whether the Government would involve Treasury, and that was not in any way referred to in the response. I doubt whether the answer really addressed the question.

Madam SPEAKER: Does the Minister wish to add anything?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The member may not be aware, but every paper that goes to Cabinet is given a close scrutiny by Treasury.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table a document that states that the Minister of Housing acknowledges that hundreds of thousands of young households are struggling with affordability and he is going to build houses for them all.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I seek leave to submit a document from a speech to the Property Institute by the former leader of the National Party, Dr Brash, that states that National will renew its 1990s programme of selling off State houses.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Would members please be quiet when the question is being put, otherwise members will be leaving the Chamber. There is objection.

Auckland District Health Boards—Productivity

4. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Has he received the series of reports on the three Auckland district health boards confirming hospital productivity has been declining despite huge funding increases, and what action is being taken as a result of these reports?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes. Although they certainly do not prove the conclusions that the member asserts, they are a valuable resource for learning how to further improve value for money.

Hon Tony Ryall: If these reports do not support the conclusion of falling service for increased funding, does the Minister agree with the Labour Party appointee and deputy chairman of all three Auckland district health boards, Ross Keenan, who said: “The reality is, yes, we accept decline in productivity is a huge concern given the huge increases in resources this Government has thrown at health.”—how does the Minister explain that one?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The reason the deputy chair of the three district health boards expressed his concern is that the district health boards are keen—and, in fact, are required—to pay attention to value for money. An example of this is the $15 million per annum laboratory contract that the three district health boards have undertaken—a saving of $15 million per annum, prospectively—opposed, almost unbelievably, by the National Party.

Ann Hartley: What recent reports has the Minister received from the Auckland district health boards?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I have received a number of reports recently. The first is that since 1 July the Auckland District Health Board has improved its forecast financial position by $45 million per year. Secondly, so far this year Waitematā District Health Board has achieved a 4 percent growth in volume of work, with a 2 percent increase in staffing. Thirdly, in Counties Manukau District Health Board acute hospitalisation rates for children have declined by 5 percent over the past 2 years. Mortality rates have decreased for both children and adults. What better sign of improved value for money can there be than that, I ask. Finally, in the first 6 months of this calendar year over 1,000 additional elective operations will be completed between Waitematā District Health Board and Counties Manukau District Health Board, with a further announcement for further increased surgery from Auckland District Health Board still pending.

Barbara Stewart: Would he concede that the boards’ productivity is likely to be further reduced by their mismanagement of negotiations relating to the laboratory services contract, which has so far cost them $1 million in legal fees; if not, why not?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I just make two points. First of all, this matter is before the court, and commenting on the court case in unwise. Secondly, the court case was not taken by the Auckland district health boards; they spent money responding.

Heather Roy: As the Minister of Health did not answer the question from the Hon Tony Ryall, I ask again whether he agrees with the deputy chairman of Auckland’s three boards when he said: “The reality is, yes, we accept decline in productivity is a huge concern, given the huge increases in resources this Government has thrown at health.”; and how many more secret reports need to be written, questions asked, and denials issued before Labour comes up with a prescription for health care that is more than just dumping sick Kiwis off waiting lists?

Hon PETE HODGSON: You see, the primary question could have been asked: “… confirming hospital productivity has been declining because of huge funding increases.” It was not so long ago that New Zealanders were concerned that doctors were treating and diagnosing patients when, really, their first and foremost need at that moment was to get some more sleep. Productivity can be improved by having nurses and doctors run more quickly down corridors, but it is not a sustainable way to go.

Hon Tony Ryall: There is a problem.

Hon PETE HODGSON: We are pleased that there has been an increase in doctors—in fact I will tell the member what the increase is. On page 6 of the third report on productivity from the Auckland district health boards it is stated that there has been a 19 percent increase in doctors and a 14 percent increase in nurses. One would think that therefore the increase in the bureaucracy from the stuff that you hear from the National Party would be the sum of those two figures. But let us have a look at the administration and management personnel increase—oh, it is 6.4 percent! So another prejudice has been disturbed. The member needs to invent new prejudices.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to reflect most carefully on what we have just seen here in Parliament, which is that a basic question was actually asked twice. We saw the Minister of Health stand up and give quite a long speech that might go down alright at a Labour Party conference where the people attending are rather uncritical. But the Minister stood up, framed the question himself, then answered it. Well, actually, what we have in this House is a question time where other parties ask the questions of the Minister. That does not give a licence for the Minister to get up, say what the question should be, put the question, and then answer it.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I understand his point of order. As the member knows, Ministers do not have to give yes or no answers. The Minister did respond by giving his view of the matter and, as such, complied with the Standing Orders by addressing the question.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister recall last week dismissing Treasury’s warning on declining productivity because out-patients were not counted, and now that these Auckland district health board reports do include both in-patient and out-patient discharges and still show the number of doctors and nurses increasing but the number of patients being treated falling, what excuse will he use now?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member forgets—even though it is only a few days ago—that the primary finding of that Treasury report is that productivity is hard to measure. These benchmarks are an attempt to improve the measurement. Actually, we are going to do some benchmarking in some more district health boards, too, because if we get better at it, we will be able to identify how productivity can improve. One really interesting thing is that one cannot have good benchmarking across district health boards unless one has a cooperative framework in which to operate. This is a recent phenomenon. During the 1990s there was no cooperative framework. [Interruption] Crown health enterprises competed against one another; they competed against one another for doctors, services, and everything else. You see, that is why there was a 42 percent increase in health expenditure in the term of the National Party, and 89,000 New Zealanders on the waiting list when it was thrown out of office.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you please tell me what is so special about Tony Ryall that he can sit through an answer like that, having his mouth constantly open, interjecting the whole time the answer was given, and never being stopped. Frankly, there are members in this part of the House who remain reasonably quiet during question time and hear the questions and answers. But I do not see why certain members who are far more junior than others in this House and who have been here only 5 minutes can get away with that sort of behaviour. That was a very good example. It was not just Tony Ryall by himself; seven other people over there were shouting out, as well.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. As the member knows, interjections are permitted. However, persistent interjections can, in themselves, be disruptive. In that particular instance, the Minister’s answer was considerably lengthened by his responses to the interjections. That is what happens if we get this chit-chat.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You do not get my point. I am asking what is so special—[Interruption] There it goes again. It is a point of order. You have five people shouting out there. All should be exited from the House because of that. That is what the Standing Orders state. That is what Speakers’ rulings state. But, again, we have a certain group getting away with something in this House that the rest of us are not allowed to indulge in on any occasion. The constant shouting out and interjecting is going on as I speak now. I want to know what is so special about them. It is not because the answer was long that he was entitled to interject from the start to the finish. At the start, he could not have known that the answer was going to be long. We at this end of the House want to know why they are getting away with what looks to be—I am not accusing you of this is an adverse way—like special treatment for the National Party.

Madam SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter. But the member does raise a good point that persistent interjections, in themselves, can be considered disorderly. So I just remind members of that, particularly when there is a running commentary and Ministers are trying to respond to the question that is asked by the member who has asked it.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Is it correct that two of the factors that can be cited here are improved working conditions and increased pay; if so, has the Minister received any reports of any occasion on which any National Party spokesperson has opposed any claim for increased pay or increased working conditions, as opposed to going out on the steps of Parliament House to greet every group that has ever arrived asking for more spending for health, and promising to give it?

Hon PETE HODGSON: No, I cannot. On the contrary, I find that the National Party is usually very, very keen for the Government to get out its second cheque book and write a cheque in order to get this, that, or the other strike settled.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister recall telling the House last week that productivity reports could not be relied on because the bulk of hospital work is in medical discharges, and how can he say that more is being done in Auckland when these district health board reports show the number of doctors and medical services has grown by 20 percent but the amount of care provided has fallen by 6 percent?

Hon PETE HODGSON: There are several ways to answer that question. The first is to repeat that it is not a bad idea for doctors to get some sleep. The second is to point out to the member that in the life of this Government we have built a new hospital at Waitakere. There has been a new hospital opened in Auckland. A super-clinic has been expanded in South Auckland. Green Lane Hospital has entirely shifted from one site to another. All of these things happen whilst the hospital must continue operating; and, of course, during those periods there can be a different productivity. Interestingly, Waitematā District Health Board, in the first 6 months of this calendar year, has got an increase in volume of 4 percent and an increase of staff of 2 percent.

Hon Tony Ryall: If Treasury says district health board productivity is falling, the Minister of Health says district health board productivity is falling, the Minister of Finance says district health board productivity is concerning, and Labour appointee Ross Keenan, on behalf of the district health boards in Auckland, says productivity is falling, does the Minister think district health board productivity is falling and what makes him so prescient?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I think productivity should be sought throughout the health system, or better value for money should be sought—

Madam SPEAKER: I must say Mr Ryall, I find it very distracting that once you have asked a supplementary question you then keep on asking questions when the answer is being given. I thought I had given a warning before, so I am doing it quite explicitly now. You have the misfortunate, I know, of sitting close and having a loud voice, but interjections of themselves can in fact be disorderly. Thank you.

Hon PETE HODGSON: This Government will always seek better value for money. One of the things we need to do is to benchmark district health boards—only possible in a cooperative model. To the extent that we are able to measure productivity, we can learn lessons from it. But the member does need to reflect on the fact that this particular benchmarking involved a little over 10 percent of the entire activity of the district health boards in question.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not wish to labour the point, but my leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, has raised the issue with you. You have watched and adjudged and given Mr Ryall a warning, yet as you looked to your right, whilst that answer was being given, he continued to constantly interject and heckle. How much more defiance of your rulings are you going to allow this House to witness?

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. He is labouring the point.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Does the Minister agree with Dr Cullen when he wrote to the Minister of Health that the Treasury report—

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Your role is to protect all members of this House, equally. As Speaker it is assumed that you will ensure that all members of this House are treated equally. Your attempt to belittle and demean my very valid point of order, and your reluctance to deal with Mr Ryall, demonstrate, unfortunately, that you are not prepared to do that.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The member is further back in the House; I am much closer to Mr Ryall, and I think perhaps he was not aware that while Mr Ryall’s mouth kept moving and flapping, no sound was actually coming out. I took it as some form of adoration of the Minister actually, rather than anything else.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. Mr Ryall’s interjections were certainly not heard by me, and that is my objection to it, because it creates disorder. If he wants to mumble, that is fine as long as it does not create disorder. But the member had my ruling and if he makes one more implication like that on my rulings, he will find himself not in this Chamber.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Does the Minister agree with Dr Cullen when he wrote to the Minister of Health that the Treasury report Value for money in health—the DHB sector “does raise concerns about declining productivity in DHB hospitals.”, and that “Improving hospital productivity is an important way of freeing up money for services outside hospital and for other priorities.”; and does the Minister realise that the $35 million currently being wasted across the Auckland district health boards would more than pay the Herceptin bill for all New Zealand women?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, I do agree with Dr Cullen. The member does not seem to have seized the point that that Treasury finding 2 years ago is where this benchmarking activity, and a whole lot more activity in the health system, came from. We are not short of our intention to get better value for money on our health system. We are very pleased with our health system—very proud of it—but we can always do better.

Working for Families Programme—Household Impact

5. RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What has been the impact on households of Working for Families tax credits?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The impact has been very considerable indeed. From 1 April 2007 an estimated three out of every four New Zealand families with dependent children will be entitled to further tax credits through Working for Families. Also, from 1 April Working for Families tax credits will increase by a further $10 per child per week, which, depending on family circumstances, is an increase of between 12 and 21 percent. That also means that from 1 April a family with two children on the average family income will be, in total, $136 per week better off than previously. Under National’s proposed tax cuts for the wealthy, the same single-income family would be, in comparison, $91 per week worse off from 1 April onwards.

Russell Fairbrother: What is the total increase to Working for Families tax credits as at 1 April this year?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I can advise the House that the 1 April increases to the Working for Families tax credits will distribute a further $366 million to Kiwi families with children. I note that National’s policy, announced today, is a proposal to divert between $60 million and $90 million from tax revenue as a tax break for donations. That idea seems to be based on taking money from lower-income families and giving it to wealthy families so they can donate it to lower-income families.

Russell Fairbrother: What further reports has the Minister received on the effects of the Working for Families package?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am pleased to read an excerpt from a letter to the Dominion Post from Judith Baxter of Khandallah, which reads in part: “The scheme”—Working for Families—“recognises and encourages women in their mothering role, and by offering financial support it gives women more choice when deciding how many hours of paid work they need to supplement a family income or advance a career. The power to choose takes the pressure of mums who felt they must work, reduces the need for expensive childcare, and can only benefit the family as it is intended to do.” I seek leave to table a number of letters to the editor around the success of the Working for Families package.

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

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Policy

6. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Will the payment the Government offers to early childhood providers as part of the 20 free hours’ policy cover all operating costs for centres?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yes. The funding rates are designed to cover all the operating costs of providing early childhood education to the regulated quality standards. The rates are based on information provided by centres to the Ministry of Education in the 2006 operating cost survey.

Katherine Rich: Whom should New Zealand parents believe: the Minister, who said that the rates would cover “all operating costs”, or the Barnardos chief executive, who said: “We are concerned that the rates set by Government do not cover the full cost of providing quality early childhood education to children and families.”?

Hon RUTH DYSON: In my view the public should believe both, because they are both telling the truth. The funds that are available have been provided to meet the operating costs to the regulated standards. That is not what the chief executive of Barnardos was referring to. The member should try to be a little more rigorous and accurate in her questions.

Hon Marian Hobbs: Has the Minister received any reports about alternative payments offered to early childhood providers to cover operating costs for 20 hours a week?

Hon RUTH DYSON: As a matter of fact, I have. I have seen proposals to scrap 20 free hours of early childhood education. That policy would mean that all parents would have to continue to pay fees to meet the costs of early childhood education for those 20 hours. That is the National Party policy. Labour’s policy will substantially reduce costs for parents. That is why the early childhood education sector is very supportive of this initiative. It will increase participation and does support families. I cannot imagine why that member is so opposed to it.

Katherine Rich: Why does she not admit that the Government will not be covering all operating costs and that it works out its figures based on average operating costs, and does she agree with the Ministry of Education’s handbook on 20 free hours of early childhood education, which states that providers can enforce the payment of optional charges by withdrawing or withholding children’s enrolment; if so, why does she continually say that providers will not be able to charge for 20 free hours when the rules clearly state that they will—will those charges be optional, or not?

Hon RUTH DYSON: To repeat the answers to the same questions by the same member last week, I say the free early childhood education rates cover all operating costs as determined by information provided by the centres in the Ministry of Education’s 2006 survey. The costs include teachers’ salaries, administration costs, professional services, utilities, capital and property costs such as rent and mortgage repayments, and the replacement of assets.

Katherine Rich: How can extra fees on top of the 20 free hours of early childhood education be “voluntary”, when ministry guidelines for centres state: “The service may enforce the payment as they would a fee.”; how can something be voluntary if it can be enforced in a compulsory way—will parents be referred to Baycorp if it is not paid?

Hon RUTH DYSON: To repeat the same information given to the same member in reply to the same question last week, I say the key rule is that parents cannot be charged for 20 free hours of early childhood education. That is really what the word “free” means. Parents may be asked for, and may choose to pay, a donation for services—[Interruption] It is the same information as that given last week. It is for services in addition, such as—

Madam SPEAKER: It is impossible to hear the Minister’s response. Would the Minister please continue.

Hon RUTH DYSON: For example, if the centre provides sunscreen lotion, parents may be asked to pay for it. They may be asked to provide for clothing or for any additional items, and may choose to pay for that. The 20 free hours of early childhood education is just as it is stated: 20 free hours.

Katherine Rich: Does she think parents are idiots when she says they may be asked to pay money and they may choose to pay that money, when in fact if they do not pay their child will be asked to leave the centre or will not get into the centre in the first place; how can a voluntary payment be voluntary if it is enforceable by centres as per the ministry’s own guidelines—or does the Labour Government have its own special definition of the word “voluntary”?

Hon RUTH DYSON: In general, my answer would have been: “No, I do not consider that New Zealand parents are idiots.”, but having listened to the member repeat the same question time after time, I may now reconsider that.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Madam Speaker—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: The question will be asked in silence. Anyone who interrupts will leave the Chamber. It is becoming too disruptive.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Will the Minister accept Katherine Rich’s implied suggestion that the Government should pay for whatever an early childhood centre chooses to provide or whatever parents demand should be provided; if so, how would she reconcile that with Bill English’s call for cuts in Government spending?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I certainly would infer that, from the member’s continued questions. But although that is inconsistent with co-leader Bill English’s stated position, it is consistent with that of the spokesperson on health: one of accepting every demand in the health system and demanding that every health provider gets more funding.

Electricity—Renewable Generation

7. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister of Energy: What reports, if any, has he received on plans to build renewable electricity generation in New Zealand?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): Contact Energy has announced plans to invest $2 billion in renewable geothermal and wind energy, in preference to using Ōtāhuhu C. I am also advised that Contact Energy’s share price rose upon the announcement, showing that renewables make both environmental and economic sense. The Government’s climate change policies are clearly working.

Steve Chadwick: How will Contact Energy’s extra renewable generation help New Zealand towards carbon neutrality?

Hon DAVID PARKER: By decreasing the proportion of electricity that comes from emission-producing thermal electricity, we take another step towards carbon neutrality. As John Ashton, the UK’s most senior climate change diplomat, said today, carbon neutrality is an achievable goal over time. Yesterday Meridian Energy attained carbon neutrality. Despite the National Party’s wish to the contrary, carbon neutrality is breaking out all over the place.

Gerry Brownlee: Why does the Minister keep repeating the Prime Minister’s carbon neutrality mantra, when in 2006 electricity generated from renewable sources was the lowest on record, a 210 megawatt wind farm was delayed by over 15 months because of Resource Management Act difficulties, the second-biggest thermal plant in New Zealand’s history is about to be commissioned, and Contact Energy has put the strong proviso that it will go ahead only if the Resource Management Act does not get in its road; what is the Minister doing about that?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It appears that the National Party is sad that the Government is successful in actually bringing forward renewables. Indeed, I quote from Mr Baldwin, the chief executive of Contact Energy, who said that “with Government support for the consenting of geothermal and wind development, he believed the Government’s goal of meeting New Zealand’s energy growth from renewable forms of energy could be realised.”

Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table documents showing that New Zealand’s carbon emissions have risen astronomically in the last 7 years, and the trend shows no sign of turning around, at all.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

Hon Phil Goff: In the Minister’s promotion of renewable energy to reduce global warming, what support has he received from the National Party, given the statement made in this House not so long ago by its co-leader John Key that “Even if one believes in global warming”—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have a leader; his name is John Key. We are sick to death of Labour members’ smart alec behaviour in their reference to a co-leader, and we want it to stop. [Interruption] Much as the House was refused the right to refer to “Helengrad” and the “Republic of the Labour Party”, so, too, this will stop.

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. I ask members to refer to other members by their correct names and titles. Would the member please start again.

Hon Phil Goff: In his promotion of renewable energy to reduce global warming, what support has he received from the National Party, given the statement made in this House not very long ago by Mr John Key that “… even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it— … we will see billions and billions of dollars poured into fixing something we are not even sure is a problem.”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Indeed that quote does illustrate the difficulty we have in garnering support from National members for sensible policy in this area. It is plain that they remain unconvinced as to whether climate change is real, as evidenced by that quote. Dr Smith last week said the Hon Phil Goff was misquoting when—as Mr Goff just repeated then—he was absolutely accurately quoting, and those comments are irreconcilable with later comments from Mr Key saying he believed in climate change and always has.

Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table the National Party document on the environment released last October, which now appears to be the source document for David Parker’s climate change policy.

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

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table in the House Mr Key’s comment quoted in Hansard that he is suspicious of global warming and that he is not even sure it is a problem.

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

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Through you might I respectfully remind the House that it has become the convention that members raise and table documents at the end of supplementary questions, unless there is a particularly good reason for doing otherwise.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for reminding members of that point.

Peter Brown: Noting all this debate on renewables, will the Minister clarify the position on what will happen if Huntly coal-fired power station is shut down—as is being advocated by Greenpeace; would New Zealand’s electricity supply suffer, and what effect would such a closure have on climate change?

Hon DAVID PARKER: If a price on emissions is introduced into the economy, the cost on per unit of electricity output will actually be most expensive for the coal-fired Huntly power station, and it is likely to change the relative despatch order of different generation sources so we may see Huntly being despatched less often as a consequence. Nonetheless, we will be reliant for some years to come on energy produced by Huntly.

I seek leave to table two documents. The first is Contact Energy’s announcement of $2 billion in renewables where it says that the Government’s vision of achieving growth in electricity from renewables can be met.

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

Hon DAVID PARKER: The second document I would like to table is Meridian Energy’s announcement in respect of having achieved certified carbon neutrality.

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s latest deforestation figures released today that show that last year we lost more trees than in any year of history since 1946.

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

Ingram Report—Status of Report

8. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he still rely on the Ingram report because it is an authoritative, comprehensive report written by a Queen’s Counsel as he confirmed to the House on Wednesday, 30 August 2006?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): Yes, and I note that the member has produced no evidence to the contrary.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Why did the Minister tell Parliament in answer to a question last Thursday that it was not correct that when Mrs Field presented Taito Phillip Field’s 18 May letter detailing the Associate Minister’s alleged decisions to the Apia branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service, the branch manager in Apia faxed the group manager of service international in Wellington the same day asking “whether our Assoc Minister was aware of the information we have received … regarding these Thai nationals when he apparently made these decisions following discussions with the Hon Taito Philip [sic] Field”, when paragraph 136 of the Ingram report records those very words, and paragraph 137 notes that the branch manager in Apia did fax that query to the group manager of service international, the same day, on 9 June 2005?

Taito Phillip Field: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is an understanding in this House that members should avoid bringing the names of wives, spouses, and family on to the floor of this House. That is my objection to the question.

Madam SPEAKER: My ruling is that if there is a legitimate reason for doing so in the context of the documentation then that is permitted.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Quite simply because I am advised that on a local time basis the letter was presented in Apia on 8 June and transmitted through to the department’s managers in New Zealand on 9 June.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Why did he tell Parliament in response to a question last Thursday that it was not correct that, after receiving the fax from the Apia branch manager of the New Zealand Immigration Service, the group manager for service international phoned the then Associate Minister’s office the same day to warn him and spoke to the Associate Minister’s private secretary, when paragraph 137 of the Ingram report clearly states that the group manager received the fax from the Apia branch manger on 9 June, and paragraph 138 not only discusses the group manager phoning the Associate Minister’s private secretary but also details the telephone records of a 5-minute conversation between the group manager and the private secretary at 2.41 p.m. on the same day, 9 June 2005?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I said so for the same reason I gave in my previous answer. It has been long established in this House and in the Ingram inquiry report that the key fact was that the attempt to transmit that information to the Minister did not succeed before the Minister had to make his decision. Consequently, Mr Siriwan remains outside New Zealand and the Minister remains beyond reproach for his approach to that issue.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that after an email was sent from one of Taito Phillip Field’s ministerial staff to the New Zealand Immigration Service on 25 May 2005 asking about Mr Siriwan’s partner’s removal costs, compliance officer Murray Gardiner emailed the Associate Minister’s private secretary, Nicola Scotland, prior to the Associate Minister making his decision, and told her about Sunan Siriwan being in Samoa and the query from Mr Field’s ministerial office?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: According to the information I have before me, some emails were sent at that time. As to the exact content of that information, I am not quite sure at this point.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Why did the Minister tell Parliament in response to a question last Thursday that crucial to Dr Ingram’s judgment about whether the Hon Damien O’Connor’s private secretary would have passed on the information she received from the head of service international on 9 June were the facts that “the meeting with Taito Phillip Field in question happened on 17 May, and that the first alleged passage of specific information about Sunan Siriwan to the private secretary did not occur until some 3 weeks later, on 9 June.”, when the Ingram report states specifically at paragraph 133 that on 27 May 2005 compliance officer Murray Gardiner emailed Damien O’Connor’s private secretary, Ms Nicola Scotland, with specific information about Sunan Siriwan and his partner, Ms Phanngarm, in Samoa?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: In the first place, it is because the Ingram inquiry report conclusively concludes that the Minister in question did not receive the information before he made the decision. That judgment is backed up in the financial review report of the Department of Labour, published yesterday, which records that member’s party—no doubt led by that member—as saying that the Associate Minister’s briefing paper did not contain that information and that that represented either a lapse of judgment or a failure of processes on the part of the department, not the Minister. That is what the chief executive of the department has agreed with since April last year, and I suggest that that member is continuing to waste the time of this House by going over the same old ground when there is nothing new to say.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: If, as the Minister claimed in his answer to Parliament last Thursday, the 3-week gap from the date of the meeting between Taito Phillip Field, Damien O’Connor, and Mr O’Connor’s private secretary was crucial to the issue of whether the private secretary, Nicola Scotland, would have passed on the information she received from the head of service international on 9 June, how does the Minister explain Ms Scotland’s claimed failure to pass on the information from compliance officer Murray Gardiner, received on 27 May, only 10 days after that crucial meeting on 17 May 2005?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: What has been clear all along is that private secretaries receive a great deal of information from a great deal of sources, not all of which is corroborated or reliable. It is a matter of a private secretary using judgment in deciding what information to pass on to his or her Minister. The chief executive of the department has already stated that on this occasion the department should have had more robust processes to ensure that the Minister was informed in writing. He was not, and the member has drawn attention to that fact in the financial review of his department that was published yesterday.

Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Landcorp Properties

9. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: He aha te hātepe whiriwhiringa kua whakatakotoria e Te Tari Whakatau Take e pā ana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi, ki te pānui atu ki te iwi i te hiahia o Landcorp ki te hoko i ngā whenua kei te tautohea e ngā whakataunga i raro i te Tiriti o Waitangi?

[What is the process of consultation that the Office of Treaty Settlements initiates with respective iwi to inform them of Landcorp intentions to put up for sale lands contested in Treaty of Waitangi settlements?]

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): If the Office of Treaty Settlements is in negotiations with a group, the office discusses the proposed sale with the mandated representatives.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What is the Minister’s response to the comments made by Jim Sutton, former Labour Cabinet Minister and Landcorp chairperson, who told Waatea News on Friday, 23 February that the Office of Treaty Settlements may have made a mistake of judgment; and would he not agree that the fact that Hauraki Māori Trust Board chairperson Toko Renata and senior tribal kaumātua have occupied Whenuakite Station in a bid to stop the sale of the land is indeed a very serious response to this mistake of judgment?

Hon MARK BURTON: It is obviously Mr Sutton’s prerogative to offer an opinion, and I have no particular view on his opinion. Certainly, I take all negotiations seriously, but, as the member knows, in the case of the latter there is no mandated negotiation in progress. None the less, these cases provide a complex set of circumstances, and under the circumstances I am taking the opportunity to look at the detail of them.

Hone Harawira: Kia ora, Madam Speaker, kia ora tātou. How does the Minister reconcile the difference between his response to my questions in the House last Wednesday, when he suggested that Landcorp property was generally not available for use in settlements, with this comment made by Mr Sutton on Friday: “I’m working on the basis the State-owned farming company’s land is available for Treaty settlements.”?

Hon MARK BURTON: There is no inconsistency, but perhaps I should explain. I think what Mr Sutton is referring to is that in all circumstances when surplus land is available, it is offered back to the Office of Treaty Settlements. My response indicated that it is not generally the case that that offer is taken up, because of the section 27B memorial coverage that the land already enjoys.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. For what reasons did the Office of Treaty Settlements refuse to purchase land offered by Landcorp for use in Treaty settlements, and who will be held accountable for any extra cost incurred if the land has to be bought back by the Crown from a private buyer for the purpose of a land settlement?

Hon MARK BURTON: It is fair to say that the process that has been followed consistently since the early 1990s has been followed in this case. I think the decision was taken primarily on the—

Shane Ardern: It was just faster in the 1990s, that’s all mate.

Hon MARK BURTON: No, it was not faster in the 1990s. Actually, it was slower. But let me say that the decision was taken primarily on the same grounds that have been applied since the early 1990s—that is, sufficient land was judged to be held available. Secondly, I can say to the member that should such land be acquired for the purpose of a settlement, whether by direct purchase by the Crown before the fact or through a section 27B resumption, in effect, fair market price would be the prevailing sum required. So there is actually no material difference in terms of cost to the Crown.

Nandor Tanczos: Could the Minister explain in what way the Government’s position differs in principle in relation to Landcorp land from that of a thief who, on being asked to return a stolen BMW car, says: “Oh, no, I put it on TradeMe, it’s up for sale. I’ll give you my Lada instead.”?

Hon MARK BURTON: The return of land, or not, is part of a process, in each case with a mandated negotiating team from the iwi in question. That is the process used in each case. Certainly, in the case of one of the areas currently being referred to, there is not yet a mandated team.

Te Ururoa Flavell: How does the Government propose to allay the concerns of the respective iwi who have repossessed Landcorp’s Rangiputa Station on the Karikari Peninsula, and Whenuakite Station in Hauraki; and is it not sensible that in light of iwi concerns, the fact that the Prime Minister herself confirmed that she was unaware of this dispute, and the fact that Landcorp chairman, Jim Sutton, has admitted Landcorp was unaware that there was a claim on this land, all of these are an indication there is something seriously wrong with the process of land properties to be offered back under the Treaty settlements process?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I indicated in an earlier answer—the member may have missed it what with some of the noise from members opposite—I am looking at the circumstances around both of these settlements directly. Further, I have indicated that the process that has applied since the early 1990s perhaps needs to be reviewed. In future I will have all such offer-backs referred directly to me, as Minister, which will mean a direct ministerial involvement in those future processes. Thirdly, I understand that in terms of Hauraki, Landcorp has given an undertaking that it will not take any further action on the disposal until it has had discussions with the Minister for State Owned Enterprises.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I seek leave to table a transcript from Waatea News on Friday, 23 February, in which Mr Sutton states that the Office of Treaty Settlements may have made a mistake of judgment.

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

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a document that the Minister in charge would not mind seeing. If the member could supply it I would be quite keen.

Madam SPEAKER: I shall put the leave again. Would members please be quiet when I put the question.

Leave granted.

Parole—Police Powers to Recall

10. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Justice: What advice, if any, did he give to the Prime Minister prior to her proposal to “give serious consideration” to allowing police to make a recall application for prison parolees who pose an undue risk to community safety, as outlined in her Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament on 13 February 2007?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): That I agreed that serious consideration should be given to the proposal.

Simon Power: Did he advise the Prime Minister that section 73 of the Parole Act already allows any member of the police to arrest, without a warrant, any offenders he or she has reasonable grounds to believe to be either unlawfully at large or to have breached their parole conditions; if so, is not her announcement at the start of this year just a bit of a sham to make it look like the Government is doing something after the Graeme Burton tragedy?

Hon MARK BURTON: I can assure the member that the Prime Minister is well aware of current provisions. The Prime Minister was indicating clearly a need to look at a wider potential provision. Further, I say to the member that I will enjoy his support and that of his party for the extensive further provisions in the extension of parole coverage and parole service that this Government has before the House in legislation at this time.

Simon Power: Does the Minister stand by the Prime Minister’s statement that the police are best placed to know whether an offender poses an undue risk to the safety of the public; if so, can he explain to the House and the public of New Zealand why section 73 of the Parole Act was not invoked at the time that police told the probation service that Graeme Burton was not living where he was supposed to be, that he had amassed a cache of weapons, and that “if Burton’s parole wasn’t revoked and he remained in the community that he would kill someone”?

Hon MARK BURTON: The member knows that it would be irresponsible of me to comment on any specific case, particularly when it is under current investigation.

Simon Power: Has he seen the recent claim by the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, Barry Matthews, that he was not aware of any proposals to change the Parole Act, and why did he not consult with the department, which not only administers the probation service but also provides the funding for the administrative support to the Parole Board, or has he, like the rest of us, simply lost confidence in the department?

Hon MARK BURTON: I have had considerable discussion with my parliamentary colleague the Minister of Corrections.

Simon Power: When the Prime Minister prefaced her statements to fix the Parole Act with phrases such as “give serious consideration to allowing the police to make a recall application”, and “it can be argued that the police should have the power to make an application for recall”, does that mean the Government will actually change the Parole Act, or will she continue to use woolly language to make it look as though the Government is going to do something when the provisions in the Parole Act make it clear it could have done something?

Hon MARK BURTON: The Prime Minister was clearly indicating this Government’s willingness, as proven by numerous actions already, to further strengthen the provisions of the Parole Act. Further, the Government has before the House the Criminal Justice Reform Bill, which will further strengthen parole provisions. I look forward to that member’s party’s vote following his rhetoric.

Internet—Gambling Site RaceO

11. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What actions, if any, is the Government taking to close down RaceO, the Internet gambling site that went live on Saturday?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs): I am advised that officials of the Department of Internal Affairs are actively investigating the website in question. I expect to be advised of the result of those investigations within about 4 weeks.

Sue Bradford: Why was the Government not ready to deal with this website immediately, given that as long ago as 1999 the briefing to the incoming Minister for Racing at that time advised way back then that a RaceO Internet site was proposed and was not permitted in terms of the law; as this advice has been available since then and the 2003 Gambling Act confirmed the law in that area, why has it taken until now to investigate how to stop it?

Hon RICK BARKER: It is very hard to investigate intentions. The department had to wait until the website was an actual reality and investigate that.

Sue Bradford: Does he believe that the Government has the power to shut down RaceO, or are we witnessing the first of many Internet gaming sites, with all the associated damage to problem gamblers and to the New Zealand racing industry that will come from them?

Hon RICK BARKER: The answer to that question will be known at the end of the department’s investigation.

Walking Access Consultation Panel—Report

12. Hon DAVID CARTER (National) to the Minister for Rural Affairs: Has the Walking Access Consultation Panel report been discussed at Cabinet, and when will the report be released to the public?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Rural Affairs): Yes, and in due course.

Hon David Carter: For how long has the Minister sat on this report, and why will he not release it immediately to the public of New Zealand and put our farming community at ease?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The chairman of the panel presented the report to me just over a week ago. The farming community can rest assured that this report, I am sure, will be welcomed. It will also be welcomed by the recreational sector as well. It is a very sensible proposition.

Gordon Copeland: Does the Minister acknowledge that this Government has a responsibility to uphold its 1999 election manifesto pledge to complete the Queen’s Chain by securing access to the 30 percent of waterways and coast where the Queen’s Chain either does not exist or is misaligned; if so, is he concerned about rumours that the Walking Access Consultation Panel has backed down from making such a recommendation, in the wake of pressure from a minority of farming interests?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am not concerned about any rumours at all. The Queen’s Chain is something that New Zealanders have expected and upheld through the years. However, on close analysis, as that member should be very aware, one finds that the legal imposition of the Queen’s Chain is not as easy as one would think. The panel has, after extensive consultation and research, come up with some very wise recommendations on how to move forward.

Hon David Carter: So are the media reports correct that the report is a massive back-down for the Prime Minister on her original promise to ensure public access to our lakes, rivers, and coastline by forcing access over private land?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: No.

Hon David Carter: Does the report represent the unanimous view of all eight panel members; if not, who holds a dissenting view?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I would encourage that member to hold his breath until the report is released.

Nathan Guy: Will local government be expected to negotiate with landowners over messy paper road deals; will it be like so many other bits of legislation passed by the Labour Government where the ratepayer will bear the cost?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: No. The issue of paper roads, or unformed legal roads as is their proper title, is one that has been raised and thoroughly canvassed by the panel. There are some recommendations, again, to make some sensible progress on that difficult issue.

Nathan Guy: I seek leave to table Landcorp Farming Ltd’s statement of corporate intent for 2007, 2008, and 2009, and in particular its land management philosophies.

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

ENDS

© Scoop Media