Questions and Answers - Tuesday, 15 May 2007

Questions to Ministers

Finance, Minister—Confidence

1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Finance?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

John Key: Does she agree with the majority of New Zealanders who, according to the latest TV3 poll, want Michael Cullen to deliver a personal tax cut in this week’s Budget, and if there are no personal tax cuts, want him sacked; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No; I agree with the National Party spokesperson on finance that this is not the time for substantial personal tax cuts.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister concerned that 44 percent of Labour’s own voters want Dr Cullen sacked if he does not stump up with personal tax cuts in this week’s Budget, while only 41 percent of voters want him to stay; and, if Labour’s own supporters want Dr Cullen sacked—let alone the rest of the country—how long will it take her to come to that realisation?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member might do well to read the latest Australian opinion poll. Australians, by a large majority, said that the most important part of the Budget for them was tax cuts, and promptly increased the lead of Labor in the opinion polls.

John Key: If inflation concerns are the only reason Dr Cullen’s Budget will not include personal tax cuts this year, why does she think Dr Cullen said yesterday that the election year Budget in 2008 will include personal tax cuts, even though he currently has no idea what the environment will be like then?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: By sheer chance I happen to know what Dr Cullen actually said, which was that he hopes in next year’s Budget to outline the Government’s long-term plans in respect of personal taxation.

John Key: What is the magic that makes a tax cut under Labour a possibility in election year but totally unaffordable and inflationary the rest of the time?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I just answered that question, but if the member would care to even look at the latest economic data put out yesterday, he will find that retail sales rose by 3.8 percent in one quarter. If that is not showing excess demand in the economy, then I do not know what is.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the two great tax cuts in the past occurred in the late 1980s, when National was not occupying the role of Minister of Finance or Treasurer, and in 1998, when, again, National was not occupying the role of Treasurer—

Hon Member: Aw!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, it is a fact, actually, is it not, boys? The last big cut in this country was $1.1 billion, when I was Treasurer. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, and could she give us any idea why, given that track record, National should be trusted on this matter?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is certainly true to say that the largest change to the taxation system, including the biggest cuts in the top tax rate and in the business tax rate, occurred in 1988, and that there were further substantial cuts in taxation in 1997-98. It is also true that both incumbent Governments lost the next election.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister saying that Dr Cullen has confirmed in the House this afternoon that tax cuts are not necessarily on Labour’s agenda for election 2008?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I said yesterday that I hope to outline in next year’s Budget what the long-term plans will be in respect of any changes around personal taxation. What I do notice is that if we had had $2.5 billion worth of tax cuts in the last year, as proposed by the member, then the figures for yesterday’s retail sales would be much higher than they were, inflationary pressures would be higher, and the current account deficit would be even worse. But this member said that we should borrow more, as the answer to economic management in New Zealand

John Key: Does the Prime Minister agree with what, in effect, Michael Cullen has been telling the people of New Zealand for the last 8 years, which is that “you can’t have a tax cut when the surplus is small, because you can’t afford it; you can’t have a tax cut when the surplus is big, because—by the way—there’s no correlation between the two; and you can’t have a tax cut when there’s a threat of inflation, and so, in fact”—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Who wrote this rubbish?

John Key: Well, the only time one can have a tax cut, I say to Trevor, is obviously when one is behind in the polls. That is what he said yesterday.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is certainly true in any simple understanding of macroeconomic management that if a large surplus is due to demand-led economic growth, feeding that demand is the most stupid thing one could do. That is why Bill English has been saying that we should not do it. So Opposition members disagree with one another—even on their core policy.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is the Prime Minister aware of the statement made by Lester Brown in his book Plan B that the overriding challenge is to restructure taxes to get the market to tell the ecological truth; if so, how can she have confidence in a Minister of Finance who developed a billion dollar - plus tax-cut package for business without any consideration of using it to promote sustainability?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Officials are indeed working on whether the tax system can be used in that respect, but I prefer to do the work—and I am somewhat sceptical about the possibilities—rather than picking a billion dollars out of the air for supposed tax incentives for sustainability without any detail about what they might be.

Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister accept that the ACT party has always said that it is a good time for a tax cut?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, even when it was the Minister of Finance it used to argue that, as well.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Policy

2. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What indications does he have of parents and early childhood education services being aware and supportive of the Labour-led Government’s 20 hours’ free early childhood education policy?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): I am informed that 40 orders a day are being rushed out to meet the growing demand from the early childhood sector for attestation forms to sign parents up for 20 hours free. That means we now have orders for 259,000 forms; we have 107,000 parent information booklets on order; and we have had 4,200 calls to the information line. We have heard from the member’s electorate of Gisborne that that region will be celebrating the arrival of early childhood 20 hours free. I think the indications are positive.

Moana Mackey: Is the Minister aware of any opposition in principle to 20 hours’ free early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The answer is almost none. Virtually no one in the early childhood sector disagrees in principle with this policy. But I have heard that National’s Paula Bennett made it clear on Close Up last Thursday that the National Party’s opposition to the policy was not based on money, it was based on the fact that the National Party simply does not want all parents to have access to 20 hours free.

Katherine Rich: Does the Minister have any idea how many 3 and 4-year-olds will actually receive 20 free hours come 1 July; if so, what are his latest estimates, because it seems he has no idea actually how many 3 and 4-year-olds will get it?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As I have frequently told the member in answer to her many, many insightful questions on this matter, up to 92,000 3 to 4-year-olds will have access. I am optimistic that on 1 July we will have a good muster of centres. I am equally optimistic that over a period of time, just as in the case of the primary health organisations, we will see more and more centres take up this kind offer.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Does the member agree that the level of resistance to the 20 hours free policy has been greater than initially predicted, and to what factors does he attribute the level of resistance countenanced thus far?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: In answer to the first question, no. In answer to the second question, there are people on the other side of the House who are paid to get up every day and oppose it.

KiwiSaver—Average Wage and Default Contribution

3. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: What will a person on the average individual wage, working full-time, who starts a job after 1 July 2007, pay into KiwiSaver per week if they are automatically enrolled in the scheme at the default rate of 4 percent?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Approximately $34 a week.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that to get a tax incentive of about $11 a week, a person on the average wage of $45,000 will need to put $34 per week into KiwiSaver?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That is a very interesting question. I rely upon the member’s answer.

R Doug Woolerton: Can the Minister confirm that Australia has in excess of $750 billion in its superannuation fund, with compulsory contributions having started at 6 percent of people’s salaries and now being 9 percent; if so, what would the total amount of New Zealand savings be if we had decided to commence compulsory savings of that proportion in 1997, as proposed by New Zealand First?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Off the top of my head I find it fairly difficult to answer that question, given the number of variables that would come into play. But I think something approximately in the order of $100 billion—or getting towards that figure—would be about right.

Hon Mark Gosche: What reports has he seen on support for the KiwiSaver scheme?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have received reports of support from a wide range of sectors, including business, the unions, and overseas experts. I am also surprised to see a recent report from Mr English stating that his party now supported this scheme, which his leader had slated as being a cheque book that we had used to pay for the pool boy.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister tell us what proportion of people on the average wage who are facing significant increases in interest rates are likely to be able to afford to lock away $34 a week in extra savings until they turn 65, in order to reduce their taxes by $11 per week?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member is making a number of assumptions in that question, which I think he should be encouraged not to do. Let me go further than that and say that the assumption when the KiwiSaver scheme was introduced in 2005 was that 25 percent of the workforce would join up within 5 years of the scheme starting. Some recent opinion surveys suggest a considerably higher figure than that may be likely, and, indeed, a report out sometime today, I think, will show that propensity to join is actually largest amongst households in the income range of $30,000 to $69,000 a year.

Charles Chauvel: Has he seen any reports on the impact of KiwiSaver on the sustainability of New Zealand superannuation?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, I have seen a report from Standard and Poor’s saying that New Zealand is one of the best-prepared nations for dealing with the challenges of an ageing population. I have seen a rather strange report from Mr English questioning whether the political consensus on superannuation still holds. After reports from Business New Zealand calling for cuts in New Zealand superannuation, this suggests that National is now really moving towards suggesting that New Zealand superannuation should be cut by means of income and asset testing in the future.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that for KiwiSaver to make a significant difference to national savings, he would need to use the traditional tax incentive that works for higher-income people who can afford to save, or who will shift savings from bank accounts or shares into KiwiSaver in order to get the tax benefit?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I cannot confirm that.

Hon Bill English: What advice would he give to middle-income New Zealand households facing increases in interest rates: should they pay off debt in order to avoid the higher interest rates that he has partly caused, or should they opt to stay in KiwiSaver and lock up a weekly amount until they are 65 in return for either a tax benefit or some kind of donation from the Government?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What I would advise those people to do, first of all, is not to vote National. They should not vote National, because a $2.5 billion a year across-the-board tax cut would place more pressure on interest rates. They should not vote National, because Mr English has said the only problem with monetary policy is that the Reserve Bank governor has not put interest rates up enough. They should not vote National, because if there is a National Government, when they get to 65 they will find that their superannuation is less than it otherwise would have been. That is what he did the last time he was Minister of Finance; he cut New Zealand superannuation.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister tell the House why he is including in his Budget a reduction in company tax rates, which he has always argued against, and savings incentives, which he has always argued against; is it because economic policy is now run by Winston Peters, who forced him into tax incentives, and Peter Dunne, who forced him into a company tax cut?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member will have to wait until Thursday afternoon to find out what is in the Budget. Unfortunately for him, what is in the Budget is neither a cock-up nor a conspiracy—his two favourite explanations of life.

Justice—Miscarriages of Justice and Imprisonment

4. NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree with Sir Thomas Thorp, who warns in his report into miscarriages of justice that up to 20 people could be wrongfully incarcerated in New Zealand’s jails; if not, why not?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Sir Thomas Thorp’s report is a valuable study of the United Kingdom’s experience of miscarriages of justice, but, as Sir Thomas himself acknowledges, there is no definitive New Zealand data on the potential number of miscarriages of justice.

Nandor Tanczos: Does the Minister agree that following the Privy Council decision in the Bain case there are a number of other cases, such as that of Scott Watson, Peter Ellis, John Barlow, and others, that cause considerable disquiet in the public’s mind and among legal professionals, and that until this country has a process such as that outlined by Justice Thorp—that is, a criminal appeals review office of some kind—that disquiet will not be laid to rest?

Hon MARK BURTON: The option proposed by Justice Thorp is clearly a credible one for some jurisdictions, and the work we are doing right now is really examining that, alongside other options. But, without commenting on specific cases, I would point out that a number of the cases the member cited have resulted in referral back to the court by way of the current royal prerogative system. So clearly it is not the case that the process has failed many of those who have made use of it in New Zealand.

Lynne Pillay: What has the Government done in relation to the issues raised by the Thorp report?

Hon MARK BURTON: We have moved to adopt a simple three-stage case-management system for considering applications, to ensure there is a straightforward process, and have expanded the pool of legal advisers, and added additional support from external lawyers. Also, it is fair to say that at the front end the Evidence Act 2002 will have a significant and positive impact on how the courts operate, as it brings greater clarity to the way in which information is offered to courts as evidence.

Dr Pita Sharples: What explanation does he have for the finding, in the 2006 report of Sir Thomas Thorp, that Māori and Pasifika peoples use the existing processes for reporting miscarriages of justice much less than Pākehā?

Hon MARK BURTON: I cannot offer the member an off-the-cuff explanation, but certainly it sits inside the work being done now in terms of the overrepresentation of Māori in the criminal justice system. I think that question, and many others, must be addressed in terms of—

Gerry Brownlee: That’s what you were saying 9 years ago. What have you been doing?

Hon MARK BURTON: With respect, the member’s party was in Government 9 years ago. He really should focus on the facts.

Hon Peter Dunne: Does the Minister acknowledge that public concern about the way in which evidence was gathered and presented to the court in cases like the Bain case and the Watson case, raises strong doubts that the amendments to the Evidence Act, which he referred to, will overcome the suspicion that in such controversial cases the determination of the police to “get their man” often gets in the way of ensuring that all the relevant facts, regardless of their impact on the Crown case, are presented to the court, so that juries can reach a fair and balanced verdict; if so, what is he going to do about it?

Hon MARK BURTON: I think the member understands that it is absolutely improper for me to comment, at this time, on the case that is currently before the court.

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not normally raise points of order about Minister’s answers, but my question was a general one using two specific examples. I think the Minister can be invited to comment on the general proposition I raised, if not referring to the specific cases.

Hon MARK BURTON: I am happy to expand. Frankly, it is too soon to reach the sort of conclusion that the member’s question implies in relation to the changes to the Evidence Act. It was enacted in November last year, and I think it is simply too soon to reach that sort of conclusion.

Dr Pita Sharples: Does the Minister agree with the explanations of Sir Thomas Thorp that the reason Māori and Pasifika peoples do not report miscarriages of justice is that they feel they are not understood by the justice system; if so, what is he doing to particularly improve Māori and Pasifika confidence in the integrity of the justice system?

Hon MARK BURTON: I think Justice Thorp’s comments have some merit. The work that is in progress now is specifically addressing that issue both through ongoing policy and specific programmes that are already working. In particular, the work is looking at proven programmes and how they can be better resourced, particularly programmes working with Māori and Pacific communities that have a proven track record. We are looking right now at how the better resourcing of those programmes might expand the effectiveness of their work.

Nandor Tanczos: In light of the Minister’s previous answer, when he talked about the satisfactory nature of the way petitions to the Governor-General are dealt with, does he agree that justice should be transparent, accountable, and consistent in process; if so, what does he make of the opinion of senior Queen’s Counsel Judith Ablett-Kerr, who describes the current way of handling petitions to the Governor-General as “terribly arbitrary, with no consistency of approach, no transparency, and little accountability”, and does he not agree that an independent office, as outlined by Justice Thorp, would provide a transparent, consistent, and fair process?

Hon MARK BURTON: In answer to the first question, I disagree with the Queen’s Counsel, who has a particular view on these matters as an active defence lawyer. I draw to the member’s attention Sir Thomas’ view, after examining the 53 files that he had asked for the opportunity to access, that he had few disagreements with the conclusions reached. That suggests that the current process is a robust one. That is not to say that the alternative model he has raised is not worthy of consideration; it is under current active consideration, along with other possibilities. As the member knows, I think, that policy work is due for report later this year.

Nandor Tanczos: How can the Minister be satisfied with the current process in light of the fact that it took Rex Haig taking a prison officer hostage before he got a fair hearing, and does it require taking someone captive to get a fair trial in the New Zealand system?

Hon MARK BURTON: I simply do not agree with the member’s assertion.

Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask the Minister to clarify whether he is disputing that Rex Haig had to take someone hostage, or whether he is disputing that that is what it takes to get a fair deal.

Madam SPEAKER: Is the member asking another supplementary question—because the Minister did address the question? There are no more supplementary questions.

Question No. 5 to Minister

KATHERINE RICH (National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise a matter in respect of Standing Order 399. Prior to question time my office, and also the office of Judith Collins, received calls from Shane Wenzel, who is linked to the company I will be asking questions about in the House today. He issued personal threats about what would happen should I pursue my question in the House. I seek your advice on what steps to take.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. That is a matter of privilege, so the member will raise the issue with me in the appropriate way under the Standing Orders.

Case Boreham Associates—Teacher-aide Training

5. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: Has he, NZQA, or the Ministry of Education received any complaints about Case Boreham Associates, a private training establishment training teacher-aides for schools; if so, what steps have been taken as a result of any such complaints?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education): Yes. Since February 2005 the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has received several related complaints regarding Case Boreham Associates Ltd. That led subsequently to a range of actions relating particularly to the auditing process. In 2007, following, obviously, legal action against the company, its registration was cancelled by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Tertiary Education Commission ceased its funding. The commission is now applying for a refund of the money paid out early in this current calendar year.

Katherine Rich: On what date did the Minister of Education pass on to him serious complaints he received in June 2005 about the tertiary provider that the courses were so bad students had to “teach themselves” and that the tutors were so hopeless that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority reports noted that they did not know any course content and had “little or no idea what to teach”, plus tip-offs about potential fraud—that is, taxpayers’ money being siphoned off into dodgy property deals?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member will appreciate that at that point I was not the Minister of Tertiary Education. The then Minister of Education dealt with the matter himself.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Has he received any other correspondence related to Case Boreham Associates?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes. National MP Judith Collins wrote to my colleague the Minister of Education last month, requesting information on why Case Boreham Associates’ registration had been cancelled. The accompanying letter from Case Boreham Associates thanked Judith Collins for her support. I quote: “Dear Judith, Thank you for your support.”.

Judith Collins: I seek leave of the House to table my letter to the Hon Steve Maharey, including the answer I received from Mr Maharey.

Leave granted.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I seek leave to table the letter from Case Boreham Associates to Judith Collins.

Leave granted.

Katherine Rich: When the Minister says that the Minister of Education dealt with the issue himself, would he not expect that when one of his colleagues—in this case the Minister of Education—receives serious complaints about a tertiary provider, namely problems with appalling course quality and the potential misuse of tertiary funds by their being siphoned off into dodgy property deals, that Minister would pass that on to the Minister of Tertiary Education; and what discussions were had?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: At the time my colleague was the Minister responsible for both porfolios. Therefore there was no point in passing it on to himself. He did refer the matter to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority.

Katherine Rich: With reference to my colleague Judith Collins, is the Minister trying to create the impression that even though this tertiary provider failed three New Zealand Qualifications Authority audits, had tutors who could not teach, was the subject of serious allegations of siphoning taxpayers’ money into dodgy property deals, and received $1.2 million worth of taxpayer funding, somehow my learned colleague Judith Collins is responsible for that, when she was only writing a letter on behalf of a constituent asking that Minister to explain matters?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If all those facts were known to the Opposition, it seems strange that Judith Collins should write to the Minister asking him to explain his actions in that particular respect.

Katherine Rich: Which is worse: the Government dishing out money for courses of questionable academic merit, such as twilight golf, homeopathy for pets, and radio singalongs, or dishing out money to a training organisation that is under investigation for diverting taxpayers’ money—which was supposed to be used to train teacher-aides—into property deals; and what does it take for something to be done about these kinds of disasters? Do they have to be of wānanga proportions before the Government actually does anything about them?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That was a good try, but in fact the Government has saved something like $200 million by cancelling low-quality courses, which is why I have been able to redirect money into the polytechnics and universities. In this case, the Tertiary Education Commission has to continue funding while the organisation has New Zealand Qualifications Authority registration. Its student component funding started in 1999. Its funding from the Government started in 1993.

Katherine Rich: When this Government received continued serious complaints and tip-offs and three damning New Zealand Qualifications Authority audit reports, and was aware that liquidation papers were filed back in July 2006, why did it take until after the beginning of February, when the company had gone into liquidation, for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to finally scrub it off its registration list?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If we were to respond to every complaint I receive about every organisation by deregistering them, then even Auckland University would not be receiving Government funding.

Employment—Support into Work

6. RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has he received on the Labour-led Government’s success at supporting people into work?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The household labour force survey figures released last Thursday show that employment in New Zealand was at a record high of 2,143,000 people in the March 2007 quarter. That means we have 347,000 more people in work than we did in December 1999, which is an increase equivalent to the entire population of the beautiful city of Christchurch. The unemployment rate is at 3.8 percent, remaining at historically low levels. It was the 11th consecutive quarter for which the unemployment rate was below 4 percent in New Zealand. The household labour force survey results also supported a continued reduction in the number of people on the unemployment benefit in the country. There are now only 26,678 New Zealanders reliant on that benefit. That is an 83 percent reduction since this Government took office, and the lowest figure since the middle of the 1980s—27 years ago.

Russell Fairbrother: What reports has the Minister received about the numbers of youth on an unemployment benefit?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I can report that in December 1999, 17,514 18 and 19-year-olds received the unemployment benefit. As at the end of April this year, that number was 1,424.

Hon Marian Hobbs: How many?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: It is 1,424. That is a reduction of 92 percent since this Government took office. There are now 28 Work and Income service centres in this country where at the end of April there were no youth in receipt of unemployment benefit, and a further 66 service centres where the number was less than 10. That success is also reflected in the numbers of Māori youth aged 18 to 19 in receipt of the unemployment benefit, which stands at 572 in April, and Pacific youth aged 18 to 19 in receipt of the unemployment benefit, which was only 162 in April—an extraordinary achievement.

Hone Harawira: Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou te Whare. Is it true that one of the reasons for the success of the Government’s programme to support people into work is that the Government is paying employers $280 a week to take on workers; if so, can the Minister please explain to the House why, for all of that subsidising of private enterprise, Māori still make up 36.5 percent of all those receiving the unemployment benefit?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: No. It is true, however, that the number of Māori on an unemployment benefit is now below 9,000. It is actually 8,927, which is 77 percent less than it was in December 1999. I seek leave of the House to table a schedule of the 28 Work and Income service centres with nil unemployed youth, and the 66 centres with fewer than 10.

Leave granted.

District Health Boards, Auckland—House Officer Vacancies

7. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: What is the estimated house officer vacancy rate for each of the three Auckland district health boards for the third quarter, which starts later this month, and does he expect the vacancy rates to worsen?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Health): I am informed that the three Auckland district health boards have house officer vacancies—interpreted by most people as meaning a shortage of doctors—estimated at less than 2 percent, which represents seven doctors over three district health boards. I am also advised that it is not expected that the overall shortage will worsen in the next quarter.

Hon Tony Ryall: How seriously is the Government taking this issue, when senior clinicians from hospitals in Auckland are talking about a 21 percent shortage in Auckland and a 28 percent shortage in Waitematā, when the country is facing a worsening shortage of hospital doctors, and when the New Zealand Minister of Health, Pete Hodgson, is in Wales, advising the Labour Party there on how to form a new Government—just as his own is falling apart?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: This Government is the first Government since 1981 to increase the number of doctors trained—an increase of 40 since 2004. Also—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: It is becoming difficult to hear the answer.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Mr Ryall does not seem to understand that the doctors are there. In many cases, they are taking up locum positions so they can be employed on better pay and with better conditions—and why would they not? So there is not actually a shortage of doctors. Dr Stephen Child, the director of clinical training at the Auckland District Health Board, said on Morning Report this morning: “Most importantly is we need to look at how we currently staff our hospitals. We have what is called fixed staffing ratios, which means we have to have so many doctors on during the daytime rather than being able to roster doctors when we need them. And I think we need to look at the way we do the whole system and try to do things a bit smarter.” I would say “amen” to that.

Maryan Street: Has the Minister heard any reports of compromise to patient safety in respect of junior doctors in the Auckland area?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I heard that, not unusually, Mr Ryall on the radio this morning was luxuriating in some unnecessarily worrying and scaremongering statements. He said: “The real worry for Aucklanders is that unless these shortages can be fixed, their services will be affected.” But in the same news item two senior clinicians in Auckland agreed that there will be no compromise in patient safety. I am also informed that there are no plans to cut back on elective surgical services as a result of any potential house officer shortages. I advise Mr Ryall to stop being an ambulance chaser in this House and around the country.

Barbara Stewart: Is the Minister concerned that the increased rate of locum use at Auckland hospitals is exacerbating doctor shortages, as more are opting out of regular positions to take up better-paying locum work; if so, what is he doing to improve the situation?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: As I said, that does not equate with doctor shortages; it means that many of these positions are being filled by locums on better pay and conditions. I note that the medical education and training report, launched last week by Dr Cullen and Mr Hodgson, states that following the first post-graduate year there is no specific clinical requirement for the second post-graduate year, and many doctors decide to make what amount to lifestyle choices and become locums. This is clearly an area of the training system that needs further consideration; I understand that it is being done as a matter of urgency.

Hon Tony Ryall: When will the Minister of Health, Mr Hodgson, return from Wales, where he is giving the Government there advice on how to form a new Government; and does the shortage of doctors mean that services in the greater Auckland area will have to be changed in the way they are configured—for example, will women in the Waitematā District Health Board area have to deliver their babies at Auckland City Hospital because of the shortage of obstetric registrars on the North Shore?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I do not think that Mr Hodgson will be returning any time soon in answer to any pressure that Mr Ryall puts on him. I do not know exactly what the situation will be for obstetrics. If the member wants a specific answer to that question, he can submit it to me and I will see that he gets it.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister think that Dr Pat Alley, the training director of Waitematā District Health Board, was lying when he said that hospitals in the Auckland region are facing the highest staff shortages ever seen; and does it not show that after 8 years, 43 reports, and numerous committees on the health workforce, this Government has absolutely no idea of what is going on?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: What I do know is that Dr Pat Alley said on the radio this morning that he is absolutely convinced there is no compromise in patient safety because of so-called staff shortages. Dr Stephen Child, the clinical director, agrees. He says Aucklanders should be reassured that there are still a large number of doctors who are able to fill the gaps. However, Dr Child says that in the long term, staff retention and recruitment processes must be addressed, and he concedes that a better approach is needed. It would be much better for the confidence that anyone might have in an absent National Party health strategy for Mr Ryall to start dealing objectively with these matters.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister think it is an acceptable quality of care for New Zealand patients when even Dr Child from the Auckland District Health Board admits that patients see one locum doctor one night and then another locum doctor the next night, and is it little wonder that there are so many problems in the public health system when doctors change more frequently than the bed linen?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I think that members of the House might just reflect on that description. It goes to the heart of the credibility of the member who said it. In fact, the reality is that, as I said, the medical education and training report launched last week by Mr Hodgson and Mr Cullen indicates that there are necessary changes to be made in the system—not that there are shortages of doctors, as Mr Ryall shouted out on breakfast radio this morning, but that the way in which the doctors are actually used and resourced needs to be improved.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a report that shows Pete Hodgson in Wales—while hospitals are facing record doctor shortages—advising the Labour Party there on how to form a new Government.

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

Pacific Nations—Trade with New Zealand

8. TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) to the Minister of Trade: What is the Government doing to promote and assist improvement in trade between the Pacific nations and New Zealand?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister of Trade: The Government funds the Pacific Islands Trade and Investment Commission in Auckland to promote exports from Pacific Island countries and investment from New Zealand in those countries. It supports efforts by the business community, through the New Zealand Pacific Business Council, to promote two-way trade, and organises periodic trade missions into the Pacific. Offices of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise in Suva, Noumea, and Papeete act as links for Pacific clients. Through New Zealand aid the Government supports capacity building in the areas linked to trade, and, of course, my ministerial colleague does an enormous amount of work for Pacific countries in that way, and I thank her for it.

Taito Phillip Field: Given the imbalance in the trade figures recently released for trade between the Pacific nations and New Zealand—for example, New Zealand exports to Samoa are worth around $73 million a year, although New Zealand imports just $2.8 million of Samoan products; the figure for New Zealand trade to Tonga is around $45.4 million a year, and for Tongan products to New Zealand it is $2.3 million; the figure for New Zealand trade to the Cook Islands is around $66.5 million, and for Cook Islands produce to New Zealand it is just $1.3 million; and the figure for New Zealand trade to Fiji is $284 million, and for Fijian trade to New Zealand it is $56 million—what will the New Zealand Government be doing to improve that trade imbalance?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I would like to explain to the House that for most of those countries New Zealand is the route for their international trade. Often their trade comes through Auckland—that includes, for example, oil and other things. I think members have to take some care when taking those figures at their face value. They are gross, not net, figures.

Taito Phillip Field: Given the reliance of Pacific nations on agricultural exports and New Zealand’s problem with fruit fly, what progress is being made to help the Pacific nations to meet the biosecurity requirements in order to improve their exports?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I do not have a specific answer on the fruit fly question, but I am sure if the member puts down a question to the Minister responsible, he will be happy to answer it.

Overseas Aid—Announcements

9. PITA PARAONE (NZ First) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What recent announcements has he made with respect to New Zealand’s level of overseas aid?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Yesterday I announced the most significant ever increase in dollar terms to New Zealand’s aid spending. As a result of this year’s Budget, New Zealand’s aid and development programmes will increase by 21 percent, or $70 million, in the next financial year, and by a total of 69 percent over the next 4 years. This is by far the largest commitment for decades to increase official development assistance spending. The increase will take our official development assistance spending to $429 million in 2007 and 2008, representing 0.30 percent of gross national income. Further funding increases over the following 3 years commit us to reaching the gross national income figure of 0.35 percent by 2010’s Budget. On current figures that will see our aid budget reach over $601 million.

Pita Paraone: Where will the majority of the aid increase be directed?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The increased funding will go where it is most urgently needed in the Pacific and in Asia. Over half of the new money will be spent in the Pacific, particularly in the Melanesian countries of Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu where the need is greatest. Pacific-wide programmes targeting education, health, livelihoods, good governance, and economic growth will all increase. New Zealand’s capacity to respond to humanitarian crises will also be bolstered in a region as vulnerable to natural disasters as the Pacific. This is an obvious priority. In conclusion, funding for this work will increase significantly and will continue our long history of working closely with key multilateral partners such as UN agencies during times of humanitarian crises.

John Hayes: What is going when you increase the aid budget by $70 million against the background that $40.6 million spent last year on the Cook Islands, Tokelau, and Niue resulted in depopulation of those countries; $26.7 million spent in Tonga and the Solomons resulted in riots, and the capitals of Honiara and Nuku’alofa being razed; and $8 million spent in Fiji resulted in a coup—and now you plan to spend—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That member has been here for a number of months now. Three times, I think, in the supplementary question he has mixed you up with the Minister, and all of us can tell the difference.

Madam SPEAKER: I agree. I let the member go because he does not often ask questions. But would the member please observe the normal rules.

John Hayes: Madam Speaker, I assume that you would like me to start again?

Madam SPEAKER: No. I would also remind members, both those who ask questions and those who answer them, that they should be succinct.

John Hayes: And why will we be spending more money in Viet Nam, where Viet Nam’s aid will be the same as the aid going to Samoa plus the Cook Islands, which is to be doubled, and are you satisfied with the quality of the spending?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

Madam SPEAKER: Yes. We have got to the end of it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This country has had a long, recognised special relationship with Niue, with the Cook Islands, and with Tokelau. It is one that has had bipartisan support over many decades and is a responsibility that we have undertaken with the UN. I would hate to think that that comment means that the National Party intends to abandon its support for these three special countries, which has enlarged massively our footprint in the Pacific. The second thing is that depopulation is a priority, in terms of the policy to rectify that, and it is critical that the right policies be applied to those three countries—and that is our intention. The third thing is, with regard to Tonga and the Solomons, the riots there surely cannot be attributed to the aid that New Zealand has been giving in those countries, but the issue requires us to better understand how we might act within the community to ensure that those sorts of reactions to the Governments of those countries are not to be repeated. On the issue of the coup in Fiji, I do not recall the Governments of the day in 1987 or in 2000 being accused of initiating the coup in Fiji. So I am astonished that this member, Mr Hayes, seeks to follow some policy of recrimination against his former employers—namely, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs—in this House, and I would like to know whether Mr McCully endorses his approach.

Madam SPEAKER: That was a very good example of a very long question with lots of issues getting a very long answer. So I would ask members to please restrain themselves.

Keith Locke: Can the Minister explain the attention being given to what could be called climate-friendly aid projects in the Pacific—renewable energy and the like—and the potential for using some of the commendable increase in aid that he has just announced for this purpose?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: For some time NZAID has been looking at the possibility of expanding, for example, biofuel alternatives in the Pacific and ensuring that we can facilitate, if possible, the technology in those remote islands to be put in place and used, thereby saving substantially on the cost of fuel in those islands. With the rise in petrol costs, that has become more and more imperative. So it is within the programme extension of aid, and increase in funding, that we look seriously at those possibilities. I thank the Greens for their support for this policy and this increase, and I just would hope that the ACT party and the National Party would get with the programme.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. How has the proportion of overseas aid spent on the Pacific changed since the incoming Minister pledged an aid focus on the Pacific in 2005?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Madam Speaker, can I just say—[Interruption] I just want to say that this is very interesting. Mr Hayes is a member of the New Zealand parliamentary Pacific group, and has himself argued for an increase in aid within that parliamentary group.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You can probably anticipate my point of order. That was a most inappropriate way for Mr Peters to begin answering his question. We have noticed that he is struggling today, but he should not be relying on notes from Brian Donnelly to get him through things.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member, but it is also an example that when there are interjections, they tend to provoke a response. So would the Minister please just address the question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I understand the complaint of the woodwork teacher—

Madam SPEAKER: That is unnecessary.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer is—[Interruption] But that is his background and training for this place—No. 3 in his party.

Hon Member: He’s lost his mojo.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: A number of members are in the same boat, actually. The proportion of overseas development assistance spent directly on the Pacific has increased—[Interruption]—Madam Speaker, could I—

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please just get on and answer the question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am trying to, and I am on the first line, and all I am getting is a barracking act from my right, which is what the National Party is wont to do. With respect, if those members want to make those sorts of comments, surely I am—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There he is now—on a point of order.

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. We are getting close to having to hear this answer in silence. I will have one more go. The Minister will please address the question, so I would ask members to please let us hear the answer.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The change in aid focus that we pledged is seeing overseas development assistance spent directly in the Pacific increasing from an average of 41 percent to over 50 percent. These figures represent an increased focus on our neighbours in the Pacific, as I have said, as signalled by me as incoming Minister post the election 2005. I am also very pleased to see that people as eminent as President Bush have now declared that 2007 is to be the Year of the Pacific. At last we are getting our message away.

Taito Phillip Field: I know I have exhausted my allotment of questions for this week, but could I just seek leave of the House to ask a question in relation to—

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to ask an additional supplementary question. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Taito Phillip Field: Given the announcement of the increase of aid money to the Pacific, should more independence for Pacific nations be promoted by way of trade, rather than by continued dependency on aid money into the future?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is an excellent question, and the answer is, of course, yes. Our aid budget should be designed to ensure that people who are currently dependent will be able to conduct their economic and social lives with as great a degree of independence as they are able to sustain, given that in some parts of the Pacific the average age in society is under 18 years. That is pretty dramatic in terms of what the needs are, if one is a Minister of Finance in that country. But I agree with the sentiment, and our policies are focused towards that being the final outcome.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Why has the overseas aid budget increased by such a significant amount?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because I made a serious request to an enlightened Minister of Finance, and he said yes. Tackling poverty and encouraging sustainable development in partnership with our neighbours is a central part of New Zealand’s national identity as a responsible international citizen. The substantial increase has resulted from a full assessment of future needs of our overseas development assistance programme.

Energy—Renewable Energy Projects

10. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by his statement that consents for renewable energy projects should be considered on “a case by case basis” by courts and councils and “that’s how it should be.”?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment): Yes. All projects need to be evaluated on their merits, and that includes evaluating them on a case by case basis. This can be achieved through a normal consent process run by local government, or through the call-in options available to the Government. What it does not mean is taking a completely one-sided approach to large energy projects that would completely disempower local communities. To show the successfulness of this process, I am pleased to advise the House today that following consideration of the views of all interested parties, the Environment Court has approved 66 of the 70 turbines on the Project West Wind wind farm at Mākara.

Gerry Brownlee: Why does he rest his hopes on the “successfulness” of that particular approach, when in New Zealand today it is much easier to build a thermal electricity generation plant than it is to build a renewable one; when so many of the renewable projects are stalled through their spending months, if not years, in the court—3 years in the case of Project West Wind—and when costs, which in the case of Project West Wind amount to $120 million, are escalating at an enormous rate? Why, then, does the Minister not take some action to give a bit of teeth to his Prime Minister’s call for carbon neutrality?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I do apologise to the member for the invention of that word; “success” would do. I do not believe there is an issue here. I think this Government takes the appropriate attitude towards the Resource Management Act. We have no intent—unlike that party—to tear the guts out of the Resource Management Act, to quote Mr Williamson. The fact is six wind farms have already been commissioned in New Zealand, a further six currently have consents but have not yet been commissioned, and a further 25 are in the planning process.

Hon Marian Hobbs: Why did the Government not call in Project Hayes?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Early in the process, both the territorial local authority and Meridian Energy expressed confidence in the normal consenting process. Therefore, the Government decided not to call in the consent but, instead, to make a whole-of-Government submission in support of the project. I can advise the member that it was not until a matter of days before the consent process was about to begin that Meridian Energy wrote asking the Government to call in the project.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister accept that under the current arrangements it would be many, many years before those 25 proposed wind farms were adding to New Zealand’s electricity generation, but that in just the short time of 7 years that his Government has been in power coal use has increased tenfold; and how does that sit with the Prime Minister’s goal of New Zealand being carbon neutral?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: No.

Gerry Brownlee: Has the Minister noted that the approval process under the Resource Management Act sees thermal energy power stations consented to much more rapidly than renewable energy projects, and that when they are appealed to the Environment Court, the hearings take an average of 18 months to resolve, and usually the project goes ahead; if so, why will he not move to call in renewable energy projects, or can he not see the urgency here?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Yes, I do concede that many of these issues are urgent. I will not hesitate to consider and advise Cabinet accordingly if I think the local councils are not capable of running a robust process.

Gerry Brownlee: Why has he vaguely talked about developing a national policy on wind power that would give weight to national interest in the longer term, when in the shorter term—from next year, in fact—we start incurring a liability under the Kyoto Protocol for our sky-rocketing growth in carbon dioxide emissions, most of which have come from greater reliance on thermal electricity generation?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Because this Government is intent on working with parties, including local government, for good outcomes, unlike National members, who members will recall forced my local authority in Dunedin to sell the Waipori dam. But I am open, as I have said publicly, to developing a national policy statement around renewable energy, should the need for it be identified as a result of the draft New Zealand energy strategy currently under preparation. I remind the member that I recently appointed an independent board of inquiry to hear public views on a proposed national policy statement on electricity transmission. I expect that board to notify the national policy statement shortly. That proposed national policy statement recognises the benefits of, and the need for, a robust transmission network, and reflects the Government’s strong commitment to the development of clean and renewable energy sources.

Gerry Brownlee: Why does the Minister persist in saying that everything is OK when last year the Huntly station operated at record levels, those records will be broken this year, and the overall amount of energy produced from thermal electricity and used will be at record levels, and what does that say about his Prime Minister’s determination to make us carbon neutral?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: My responsibilities, as the member is only too aware, exist around the consent process under the Resource Management Act. I believe that that process is a robust mechanism for balancing conflicting imperatives.

Question No. 9 to Minister

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): For the benefit of the Speaker of the Bougainville Parliament, who is sitting over there, I seek leave to table yesterday’s official development assistance speech, and to confirm for him that the views expressed by Mr Hayes are not the views of this Parliament.

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

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Was that appropriate—to address somebody else in this House?

Madam SPEAKER: No, it was not appropriate. The member—

Gerry Brownlee: Well, why was the leave put, then?

Madam SPEAKER: —is quite right. Because I normally let people finish their sentences! I have been reminded by that member in the past that that is the way this House should be conducted, so I do not interfere when people are halfway through their statements. But it was inappropriate. Members know that when they are tabling documents they do it succinctly; they identify the document, and they do not give any other interpretation to it. Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Climate Change—Government Policy

11. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: What reports, if any, has he received on support for the Government’s climate change policy?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): I have received a report that a senior member of this House called Kyoto “a failure of a document”, and a second report in which the same member says he would now honour Kyoto. Of course, the member responsible for yet another climate change flip-flop is John Key. New Zealanders will judge whether his comments are as sincere as they were consistent.

Steve Chadwick: What recent reports has the Minister seen regarding progress towards carbon neutrality?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have received a report that the InterCity group aims to operate the world’s first carbon-neutral national transport system. It recognises the business and environmental benefits of carbon neutrality. Despite National’s wish to the contrary, carbon neutrality continues to break out all over the place.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will the Government adopt John Key’s very realistic and credible policy target of a 50 percent reduction—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Will the member please continue.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I will ask it again, Madam Speaker. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: We will hear this question in silence.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will the Government adopt John Key’s very realistic and credible policy target of a 50 percent reduction in 1990 emissions by 2050, as announced at the weekend, noting today’s announcement by Japan that it will propose this exact same target at the June G8 summit in Germany, and that Japan has indicated the United States’ support for that target; and does that not show that John Key is right on the button in terms of where the international community is at on this critical issue of climate change?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I am gratified that the National Party seems to be getting in behind when it comes to climate change policy. It is now coming out in favour of emissions trading, having recently supported us on the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. I would say that advancing towards carbon neutrality can be achieved through steady pursuit of sensible—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: We will now hear the answer in silence.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I would say that advancing towards carbon neutrality can be achieved through steady pursuit of sensible climate change policy—ensuring houses are adequately insulated, rewarding those who plant forests on—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question was straightforward: will the Government adopt the minus 50 by 2050 target? I seek that the Minister, rather than giving us a generic speech, addresses the question.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister is addressing the question. If he had been able to finish, I might be able to make a better judgment on that basis.

Hon DAVID PARKER: In addition to those sectoral efforts, the Government is proposing other policy and, of course, this other policy will enable the Government to properly calculate what is an appropriate target for our emissions reductions.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will the Minister, having stated on 6 November 2006: “You ask me what date would New Zealand be carbon neutral. We haven’t picked a date yet. You’ll find it becomes clear in 6 months.”, now make the situation clear, given that 6 months have passed, or was this just another example of climate change policy from him of promising answers in the never-never and never delivering?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Members who have had an opportunity to review the United Nations report on climate change, and the different mitigation options that are open to countries to reduce their emissions, will be pleased to see that the measures that have been proposed by this Government, and that are being considered pursuant to the documents released prior to Christmas, cover the ambit of mitigation potential.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question asked on what date New Zealand would be carbon neutral. The Minister said 6 months ago that we would know now. He made no attempt to answer that at all. He gave a generic answer about what might be happening around mitigation. No attempt was made to address the question of what date the Government would achieve carbon neutrality by.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member, but, as members know, they cannot specify the particular answer they want to the question. The Minister did address the question.

Climate Change—Sink Credits

12. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does the Government stand by the advice of Cabinet Paper POL (00)26 from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade on climate change that “We also seek to maintain a high level of environmental discipline by allowing owners of sink credits to trade them freely on the international market.”, and that “New Zealand made it clear during the Kyoto negotiations that we do not intend to use sink credits to—in effect—cross-subsidise our emitting sectors, allowing them to avoid taking action.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): The advice referred to—by the Hon Phil Goff in 2000—needs to be seen in the context within which it was set. That was the international position for New Zealand in the negotiations that were taking place in 2000 on the rules of the Kyoto Protocol, and in particular on whether any limits should be placed around the use of forest sinks to meet emission reduction targets. New Zealand’s position was that there should not be limits on the international trading of sink credits and that emitting sectors also had responsibility for taking action to reduce emissions. The outcome of the international negotiations was that the sink credits were able to be traded internationally.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What explanation is he giving, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, on why the Government reversed its policy of allocating Kyoto forest owners carbon credits; and does he support the Government’s decision to nationalise those credits?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The member should really direct his question to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues. Let me tell the member, for his edification, that the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative constitutes a sinks trading mechanism. It allows landowners to receive sink credits. Each credit is expected to be tradable on the international market. The Government’s recent discussion paper on sustainable land management and climate change included options to encourage afforestation. The Government is considering public submissions on this issue. No policy decisions have been made. The Government has announced its intention to investigate options for a broad-based emissions trading scheme for New Zealand. New Zealand expects all sectors of its economy to contribute to climate change mitigation in the long term. The question of the international linkages of such a scheme is under consideration.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has he had any difficulties in explaining the policy on nationalising Kyoto forest owners’ credits, noting that in the last Parliament his spokesperson Jim Peters said of that Government decision: “New Zealand First is flabbergasted at this back-door socialism.” or is he now an apologist internationally for that back-door socialism?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As per usual, if the member is given two questions he gets his facts wrong again. What we said back then was in respect of the policy back then, and there have been some changes. There are future decisions to be made, as I said in my last answer. If Dr Smith wishes to make this an issue on the question of climate change, I ask him to refer his questions to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues. If he wants advice on foreign policy, he has come to the right man.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has he had any difficulty, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, in explaining that in the 18 months since New Zealand First formed a confidence and supply agreement with the Government, 8 million trees have been felled and not replanted, given that with much fanfare he announced on 24 July “New Zealand First proposes an extra 10 million trees a year be planted over the next 10 years—as a minimum.”—or was that a typo and “planted” should have been “cut”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There are two parts to that question. First of all, I have had no difficulty whatsoever internationally on this issue—that is a fact. If members ask my officials, they will confirm that. But on the second part—the enlightened, visionary policy that I announced on 24 July up at Russell, one of our oldest settlements in this country—we still stand by the planting of 10 million - plus trees a year. That will change this country dramatically and better enable us, as a country, to meet some of our future obligations. It also gives us options. But when the Minister says it is not happening, that does not mean we have abandoned our desire to persuade the Government to one day bring it to reality. We will not give up, because getting the right policies implemented into Government programmes is what we are famous for. Some talk; some do.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the official Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry reports that show that 8 million trees per year have been cut down since New Zealand First announced its policy on planting 10 million trees.

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

ENDS

© Scoop Media