Questions And Answers - Wednesday, 8 August 2007

Questions to Ministers

Consumer Affairs, Minister—Confidence

1. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in her Minister of Consumer Affairs, given Sunday’s press statement from that Minister rejecting the Green Party’s call for mandatory country-of-origin labelling of single component foods; if so, why?

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

Sue Kedgley: Does she have confidence in her Minister of Consumer Affairs when, instead of backing consumers’ rights to make decisions based on good information, as the Minister is mandated to do, she is actually undermining their rights by claiming that country-of-origin labelling should be voluntary and should simply be left to the market, and does she agree that businesses will provide consumers with information only if they think it will increase sales of their product and they will not provide it if they think it is likely to decrease their sales?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member is aware that the Government does not support mandatory country-of-origin labelling. The Government supports labelling around the issues of food safety.

Barbara Stewart: Why does her Government consider that country-of-origin labelling does not fit in with its stated priority of access to safe, affordable, and good food?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Because we do not believe it is relevant to the issue of food safety, which we do regulate for.

Sue Kedgley: Why does her Government support mandatory country-of-origin labelling for footwear and clothing, but not for food, and surely if we have a right to know where our T-shirts and our jandals come from, then we have a right to know where our food comes from?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That is an issue around residual tariffs. No doubt at some point, when we get to a situation of not applying any tariffs, those rules of origin will also go.

Peter Brown: Noting those answers, how does the Prime Minister reconcile her Government’s support for a Buy New Zealand Made campaign with her refusal to support country-of-origin labelling for foodstuffs; does she not accept that when people go into a supermarket, if they do not know where the food has come from, then they will not know whether it is made in New Zealand or anywhere else?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is a question of drawing a distinction around the promotion of something, and the Buy New Zealand Made campaign is about promoting to Kiwis goods that are made in New Zealand, but distinguishing from that whether compliance costs should be loaded on to business for reasons that have nothing to do with the safety of the food being consumed.

Sue Kedgley: Is she aware that there has been a string of scandals surrounding food imported from China, and that the United States, for example, has recently suspended imports of shrimps and prawns because carcinogenic residues were found in them and that the Californian department of health has advised consumers not to consume ginger because it found dangerous and illegal chemicals in it; and how, therefore, can she claim that country-of-origin labelling is not a food safety issue, particularly as the overwhelming majority of consumers believe that they have a right to decide whether to choose to buy food from countries that have a very poor safety record, such as China?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I come back to my point: the issue is food safety. That is what we regulate for. Whether food is unsafe is a question not of where it comes from but of what systems apply in those countries and of how we evaluate the food product that seeks to be on the shelves here.

Sue Kedgley: Is it not clear that we need to strengthen the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and our consumer protection regulations given the string of recent incidents such as the recall of Thomas and Friends wooden toys that were covered in lead paint, reports that toxic jewellery made in China from electronic waste and car batteries may be being sold in New Zealand, the international outcry over contaminated Chinese seafood, and the recent recall of toothpaste contaminated with industrial chemicals; and is it not clear that our present approach of waiting for scandals to break overseas is not providing consumers with the protection that they want and need, and that our consumer protection laws need to be strengthened?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The points the member makes are all good reasons for having strong regulation for safety. They are not reasons for having regulation to require labelling of country of origin.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a document “Foreign food fright” stating how consumers are increasingly concerned about the safety of food, particularly from China.

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

State Services Commission—Advice to Prime Minister

2. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: What steps did she take when the Acting State Services Commissioner, Iain Rennie, advised her office that former Minister David Benson-Pope had told Hugh Logan that he would “likely be less free and frank in meetings” with Madeleine Setchell, and when did David Benson-Pope advise her that was indeed what he had said?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Confirmation was sought from the member on the evening of Wednesday, 25 July, and he was advised to be full and frank about the matter.

John Key: Well, if that is the case, why did the Prime Minister not just sack him on the spot?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I thought that yesterday afternoon in this House would have shown that Mr Benson-Pope was not the only person with a flawed memory around here.

John Key: Why did the Prime Minister not sack David Benson-Pope right on the spot on the Wednesday evening when he clearly went to her and told her that he had lied and misled the country?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I was, of course, aware that this was new information. I was not aware that it contradicted anything that had previously been said. I discovered on the following day that it did, and I acted on that. I am still waiting for Mr Key’s colleagues to act on his untruths.

John Key: Is it not the case that if the National Party had not, in fact, asked the right question, David Benson-Pope would still be in Cabinet with the Prime Minister knowing that he had misled this country?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, that is not the case, because it was inevitable that my attention would have been drawn to transcripts of media interviews where clearly a wrong impression had been given.

John Key: Is it not the situation that when David Benson-Pope went up to the Prime Minister’s office on that Wednesday afternoon and told the Prime Minister the truth, the Prime Minister said that if the Opposition asked him the question he had to answer it honestly—because that is a new standard, and not something she normally expects?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That is indeed a standard imposed here—not a standard imposed by the Leader of the Opposition himself, who told a blatant untruth about what he had said on Iraq.

John Key: Is it not the situation that the Prime Minister of New Zealand now has so little confidence in her own Cabinet colleagues that she cannot actually ask them whether they are telling the truth but has to have her own department undertake a forensic analysis; and what sort of way is that to run a country?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I would say that the forensic analysis going on is about why Mr Key did not tell the truth about his party’s position on Iraq. That is where the blowtorch is today.

Madam SPEAKER: Would members please settle.

John Key: Why did the Prime Minister have to go and look at the transcripts, when David Benson-Pope was actually in her office and telling her he had lied?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is clear that the full story had not been told. Transcripts—

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. Mr Key’s question was heard in silence when I asked members to settle. The Prime Minister’s response will now be heard in silence.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is clear that the whole story had not been told to me and to the Cabinet. When it became clear that journalists had been told by Mr Benson-Pope that he had not expressed an opinion on Ms Setchell’s employment, and that that was not true, I moved to the conclusion that became clear on Friday, 27 July. I am still waiting for Mr Key to be held to account for not telling the truth about Iraq.

John Key: How many other members of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet are now sitting there in the situation where they, too, have lied and misled the public, but the Opposition has just not asked the right question; and is she applying the new standard to them as well—if the Opposition asks a question, make sure it is answered honestly; it is a new standard?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am applying the same standard to Ministers as I apply to Mr Key: tell the truth.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Throughout the afternoon you have listened to the Prime Minister suggest that somehow Mr Key has not been telling the truth. That arises from the fact that the Labour Party has spent a considerable amount of time in trawling through old bits of newspaper, and cutting and pasting various ideas. But, essentially, should the Prime Minister not give an answer that is consistent with the public good, and would you not expect, Madam Speaker, that someone of the Prime Minister’s stature should be able to answer that question without having to resort to that sort of cheap tactic?

Madam SPEAKER: I am not sure exactly what your—[Interruption] If members wish to remain in the Chamber, they will desist from calling out when the Speaker is on her feet. I am not entirely sure about the point of that point of order, but if the member was asking whether the Prime Minister was addressing the question, I say that yes, she has been.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a list of the numerous explanations of what the Prime Minister was doing as her chauffeur-driven car sped across the Canterbury Plains—

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

Hon Tony Ryall: —at 140 kilometres an hour—

Madam SPEAKER: I remind members that when they seek leave to table a document, they should merely identify that document; they should not read and give a long explanation of it. In future if that is done, I will consider it to be a matter of disorder.

Judith Collins: I seek the leave of the House to table the police report into Helen Clark’s art forgery.

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

Unemployment—Expenditure

3. RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) to the Minister of Social Development and Employment: What reports has he received on the reduction in unemployment-related expenditure?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister of Social Development and Employment): I have recently received a report noting that unemployment benefit - related expenditure reduced by over $64 million between September 2006 and June 2007. I am advised that if this performance continues, the Government’s expenditure reduction targets for 2007-08 will be achieved in 2 or 3 months. What this means in practice is that under a Labour-led Government more New Zealanders are getting real jobs, while the National Party is stuck in the 1990s dredging up Work for the Dole schemes.

Russell Fairbrother: Has the Minister seen any alternative statistics on unemployment benefit - related expenditure?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, I have. I have seen a media release from Judith Collins, the National spokesperson on social welfare, inaccurately claiming that there are 279,156 working-age people on a benefit, and some 40,323 on an unemployment-related benefit. This is simply not true. In fact, as at June 2006 the numbers were 261,009 working-age people on a benefit, and—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. Some members may not be interested in the answer, but others are. We will have this answer in silence.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: —to stress the last fact—there are 23,159 on an unemployment-related benefit. All I can conclude from this is that Mrs Collins’ inability to add up reinforces Bill English’s view that she was promoted beyond her capacity and has an unfortunately high estimation of her own competence.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think we are robust enough to take that sort of cheap shot, and thank goodness it was there, because it gave a bit of substance to the Minister’s answer. But, by and large, if we are to have silence around the questions and answers, then I think it only fair that we expect a robust response to that sort of answer.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I accept what the member said and that is why I did not act on the fact when he moved from addressing the question to making a political comment. But I say in particular to members in a corner of the House that is noted for its unruliness that if this continues—[Interruption] And, yes, you may look around, but you know who you are. So I would now ask members please to desist. We will recommence. Are there any more supplementary questions?

Russell Fairbrother: Has he seen any plans to reduce unemployment?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, I have. I have seen a plan from Mrs Judith Collins of the National Party proposing the reintroduction of the failed Work for the Dole scheme. I say to Mrs Collins that she will have to be quick as there are not many unemployed people left. Perhaps if Mrs Collins spent more time doing her homework and less time, as Mr English says, cultivating the media and believing the resulting publicity, she might have time to come up with a better policy.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There was noted today, also, a tendency by Ministers—senior Ministers; people whom one would expect might know better—to bring you into their answers. We do not want to interrupt the flow and we certainly do not want to confuse the Ministers, but they may need some advice as to how they construct their answers from this point on, this afternoon.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: In response, can I say that all of those quotes came from Bill English about Judith Collins, and not yourself. That is right.

Madam SPEAKER: That is really kind of you. Members will note that point.

Judy Turner: Does he accept that people unemployed right now are likely to be the long-term unemployed and face many obstacles to gaining work; if so, will he trial any schemes that assist the long-term unemployed into work, by reintroducing them to the soft skills required by employers, like punctuality and team work, through work-based projects?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member will be pleased to know that the number of people who are long-term unemployed is plummeting, along with the number of all others who are on a work-related benefit. The member will also be pleased to know that many of the schemes run by Work and Income, on behalf of unemployed people, do teach things like turning up for work on time.

Judith Collins: I seek leave of the House to table the statistics given to me by that Minister’s predecessor, which show the figures that he so kindly quoted.

Leave granted.

Judith Collins: I seek leave to table a document showing that expenditure on sickness and invalids benefits has increased by $800 million.

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

Environment, Ministry—Confidence in Chief Executive

4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he have confidence in the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Acting Minister for the Environment: Yes, but of course we are awaiting the outcome of the current inquiry.

Hon Bill English: Has the Minister seen comments from the Prime Minister over the last 2 weeks questioning the competence of the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment, and does he agree with those comments?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am aware of comments made by the Prime Minister about Mr Logan in relation to certain comments that he did not pass on to Mr Rennie and that would have helpful in the circumstances of the events of 2 weeks ago.

Hon Bill English: What does the Minister believe are the reasons why the chief executive of his ministry is subject to an investigation under the State Sector Act by the State Services Commissioner, and now by an alternative and independent investigator, Mr Don Hunn?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There were clearly issues around the employment of a person in the ministry, and statements were made by the Acting State Services Commissioner that were based on incomplete information. That information was available to the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment, and had in fact been made available to the State Services Commissioner earlier.

Hon Bill English: If the inquiry confirms what is publicly known, and what has in fact been stated several times by the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment—namely, that he did not pass the information on—will the Minister maintain his confidence in that chief executive?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That is a matter the Minister will have to consider at the time that any such report is delivered, taking account of any of the circumstances in that report.

Hon Bill English: Has the Acting Minister who has recently taken over the portfolio discussed with the chief executive any progress on the Ministry for the Environment register of personal interests, and how it will be administered?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have no information on that, but I would be very surprised if anything has been happening in that respect.

Hon Bill English: Why does the Minister not know whether the Ministry for the Environment is going to proceed with its register of interests, given the high level of interest in that across the whole public sector and by the public?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Because I am answering on behalf of the Minister, I have not been briefed on that supplementary question, which is about the seventh one.

Iraq—New Zealand Troops

5. H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) to the Minister of Defence: What further reports has he received on New Zealand committing troops to Iraq?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): I have seen a report in today’s Dominion Post. It seems that Mr Key, contrary to his recent denials, now acknowledges that he did indeed support sending troops to Iraq, but according to his office spokesman that was because he was inexperienced, and his comments reflected the caucus position at the time. I accept that the Leader of the Opposition is inexperienced—that is not the point. The point is that in his denial on television last week he openly misled the public. Saying something that is untrue to cover up something that is embarrassing ought to lead to resignation—a point that Mr Key made in question No. 2 today. The Leader of the Opposition is paid as much as a Cabinet Minister, and he should be held to exactly the same standards. I ask Mr Key to tell the truth.

Madam SPEAKER: I could not hear that answer. I am not going to ask the Minister to repeat it, because it did seem to be somewhat overlong, but if that level of barrage continues, I will ask the Minister to repeat his answer in silence the next time it happens.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question asked: “What further reports has he received …”. He could have easily answered that question, but he particularly chose to give a reasonably lengthy speech, and inside that speech there was a whole lot of supposition and, frankly, nonsense—

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. I understand the member’s point. The point is I could not hear, so I do not know whether your point of order has any substance or not—that is the point. Members in this House, including the Speaker, are entitled to hear answers and questions.

H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister tell the House what other reports he has seen relating to this matter?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I have seen a further report contradicting what Mr Key is now saying through his spokesperson. That report is from TV3 on 28 May 2007, when Mr Key said: “Our caucus didn’t support sending troops there.” He said that at a time when, his office said yesterday, it was the National caucus position to send troops to Iraq. That is obviously contradictory, but, again, that is not the critical issue. The critical issue is that Mr Key misled the public as recently as 10 days ago in denying that he or National had ever supported sending troops to Iraq. The cover-up and the untruth are even more important than the flip-flop that that represents.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sitting just two seats behind the Minister, and I have a loudspeaker beside me, but I could not hear the answer. I am not particularly deaf. There was a barrage from the National benches. Could we have the Minister repeat his answer, please?

Gerry Brownlee: There are two things. National members were tolerant of Mr Goff doing what he did; we did not want to stop him, for fear the vein might pop. But the point is that his speech bore no relevance to any ministerial responsibility that he has.

Madam SPEAKER: No. As the member well knows—we have been through this many times—if there is ministerial responsibility for reports that relate to the question, then the Minister is unable to address them. But the general point to be made, I think, is that members are entitled to be heard in this House. [Interruption] I will leave it where it was.

H V Ross Robertson: Is the Minister able to tell the House whether he has seen any further reports in respect of further deployment of New Zealand troops in conflict zones such as Iraq?

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I heard the Minister say: “Is the Minister able to tell the House …”, but beyond that it was impossible to decipher what he was saying, because of the barrage of noise. I cannot see how the question can be in order or out of order.

Madam SPEAKER: Please repeat the question.

H V Ross Robertson: Is the Minister able to tell the House whether he has seen any further reports in respect of deployment of New Zealand troops in conflict zones such as Iraq?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I have seen a further report dated 1 May 2004. It is a report from the National Party conference, and it is from the defence spokesperson, Simon Power. It says—

Simon Power: Oh, that’s new.

Hon PHIL GOFF: The member might not like the truth but it is the truth. The report states: “Without reservation we will support our close allies Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States when and wheresoever our commitment is called upon.” What that demonstrates is an inability and an unwillingness on the part of the National Party to think for itself, and a lack of vision about New Zealand as a proudly independent nation. No wonder Simon Power was sacked, when he had made that stupid comment!

Hon Murray McCully: Has the Minister seen the statement: “My long-distance telephone calls are almost certainly monitored by American sources. They have the surveillance equipment to pick up long-distance conversations and believe mine would be of interest to them. That doesn’t stop me making calls but sometimes I feel very afraid.”, and can he tell the House whether these paranoid ramblings of Helen Clark, published in 1986, still represent the basis for the Clark Government’s defence and foreign policy?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I have not seen that statement, but I did see—

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. I have given members a fairly free rein. I could not hear that answer. Would it please be heard in silence. Anyone who interrupts will be leaving the House.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I have not seen that statement from 1986, but I have seen a more recent statement from the National Party that indicates that the nuclear-free New Zealand policy would be gone by lunchtime. That statement was made when those members were busy telling New Zealanders that they were in favour of a nuclear-free New Zealand. That was a lie, that was an untruth, that was misleading, as is what Mr Key has been saying recently on Iraq.

John Key: Does the Minister think that if he had seen that statement from Helen Clark a few years ago, his barbecue would have been a little bit more successful?

Madam SPEAKER: It might surprise members to know there is no ministerial responsibility for barbecues.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Is it fair to conclude that Mr Key has finally been the first person to find a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, and it blew up in his face?

Madam SPEAKER: Well, that passes for wit.

Hon Steve Maharey: In the public interest, I seek leave for Mr Key to make a personal explanation on the contradictions, which are now worrying the public, in National’s position on sending troops to Iraq.

Madam SPEAKER: You cannot seek leave on behalf of a member. That is not an appropriate point of order.

State Services Commission—Advice to Prime Minister

6. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of State Services: What actions, if any, are being taken by the State Services Commission in light of the statement by the Prime Minister she was “unhappy” that Ministry for the Environment chief executive Hugh Logan had not disclosed the full extent of his conversation with the Minister for the Environment about the appointment of a ministry communications manager?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): I am advised that the State Services Commissioner has announced an investigation under section 25 of the State Sector Act into the recent handling by the Public Service of employment processes relating to Madeleine Setchell. The commissioner will determine any appropriate action once the results of the investigation are known.

Gerry Brownlee: When Dr Prebble stated in his article in the Dominion Post on 20 July, written about the sacking of the communications manager, that: “ministers, … ought not to be involved, and I understand Environment Minister David Benson-Pope was not involved”, was he telling the truth?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I suggest the member direct that question to Dr Prebble. I cannot speak on behalf of Dr Prebble. However, I do know that Dr Prebble is a highly respected public servant and that if he did write something that was incorrect he would seek to address that as soon as possible.

Tim Barnett: Has the Minister seen any other reports of expressions of unhappiness, and what have been the consequences?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I do happen to have seen a report in which the Leader of the Opposition indicated that he was unhappy about comments made recently by Maurice Williamson, who said that if some people cannot lose weight no matter what—

Gerry Brownlee: Point of order—

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister be seated.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has been a bad day for the Government when it comes to answers—[Interruption] I am on a point of order. However, I do believe that answers need to be given, and questions need to be asked, that are of some relevance to the primary question asked. Whether there is a degree of unhappiness from the Leader of the Opposition has nothing to do with this question, which is about the unhappy expression given to the media by the Prime Minister about this particular matter.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member and I observe that it has probably been a bad day for Parliament so far. The report that the Minister is asked to comment on must relate to the portfolio area. The question relates specifically to the chief executive. I ask the Minister to confine her answers to the supplementary questions to within the context of the primary question.

Hon ANNETTE KING: If we are talking about reports of unhappiness about the State sector, then I have a number of reports in which the National Party has expressed unhappiness with the State sector. Have National members forgotten that they wanted to get rid of James Buwalda? Have they forgotten that they said they would sack Barry Matthews? Have they forgotten that Murray McCully attacked Te Puni Kōkiri’s chief executive? Have they forgotten that they attacked the police in New Zealand? These are some of the unhappy things from the National Party. I think National members play a bit of a double game when it comes to making comments about the Public Service.

Gerry Brownlee: When Dr Prebble stated in his article in the Dominion Post of 20 July 2007, written about the sacking of the communications manager at the Ministry for the Environment, that: “ministers, … ought not to be involved, and I understand that Environment Minister David Benson-Pope was not involved”, was he telling the truth?

Hon ANNETTE KING: That is an identical question to one I have already answered, and my answer is the same.

Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister seriously asking the House to believe that New Zealand’s most senior public servant was incapable of remembering the most salient detail relevant to this case when he sat down to write his article in defence of the Public Service, and that somehow his decision not to mention then his knowledge of what actually happened was perfectly acceptable for the State Services Commisioner?

Hon ANNETTE KING: In this House yesterday I pointed out that Dr Prebble has said publicly that he had forgotten. He made a mistake, he owned up to that mistake, and he corrected that mistake. As I said, everybody is entitled to make a mistake. We have heard plenty from the Opposition side of the House today.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister stand by her claim made in the House during question time yesterday that during the period 27 May to 4 August 2007 there were two or three phone calls between her and the State Services Commissioner or someone acting on his behalf, and can she confirm that the State Services Commissioner has a no-surprises obligation on matters of potential controversy; and is she seriously asking the House to believe that Dr Prebble failed to tell her of a conversation that was important enough in the end for David Benson-Pope to get the sack?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I think members will find that the question from the member yesterday asked me what contact, notes, letters, etc. I had had from 25 July. I think that was the date; it was not in May, as was stated in the question. However, I am happy to go back and tell the member of all contacts, letters, etc. that I have had. I have no problem with that. I do need to tell this House, as I said yesterday, that the first I heard of this issue was from the Deputy State Services Commissioner on Tuesday, 3 July, when he reported to me that he had met with the chief of staff for the Leader of the Opposition on the day before at the request of the chief of staff. He was informing me that they had had that meeting and that they had discussed an employment issue at the Ministry for the Environment and other matters, including advertisements. That was the whole nature of the discussion I had.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister believe that she has been poorly served by the State Services Commissioner, firstly, in his failure to remember the most salient fact relating to this issue and, secondly, in his failure to recognise his obligation to ensure that the Minister was not faced with any surprises in this portfolio?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I am disappointed that Dr Prebble failed to remember that until later, but I agree with the Prime Minister that it is not a hanging offence. There is now a review and we will await the outcome of that review, which will also look at Dr Prebble’s actions as well as the actions of others.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister of State Services have confidence in the State Services Commissioner?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, I do.

Housing New Zealand—Hobsonville Development

7. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: What reports has he received about support for Housing New Zealand’s flagship affordable housing development at Hobsonville?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): I have seen a report by economist Dr Arthur Grimes, a director of the Reserve Bank, who has endorsed the Hobsonville project as an example of “enhanced leadership” on the issue of providing affordable housing options in Auckland. Dr Grimes appears to be at odds with John Key, who described the project as “economic vandalism”, a description seemingly inconsistent with last Sunday’s keynote address at the National Party conference that called for affordable housing. It would seem a call for action, but obviously not in his own electorate.

Darien Fenton: What other reports has he seen about plans to redevelop the former Hobsonville air base into affordable and higher-cost housing?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The Hobsonville development has been welcomed by a range of prominent Aucklanders. The Auckland City Missioner describes it and other affordable housing initiatives as commendable; the local mayors say it is our best opportunity yet for Waitakere’s economy to thrive and find solutions to deal with the city’s rapid growth. A pleasing report came from the Greenhithe Residents and Ratepayers Association, which described the vision for Hobsonville as impressive. It must be confusing for John Key, who panders to some prejudice in his own electorate, while simultaneously seeking cheap headlines advocating the same solutions elsewhere.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. What is the likely effect on house prices and affordability of implementing policies that increase demand, reduce State housing stocks, and largely ignore supply issues?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: It would be the same outcome we had in the 1990s when National tried those policies: acute housing distress, leaky buildings, and no decent homes for ordinary New Zealanders.

Pita Paraone: Is the Minister satisfied that construction at Housing New Zealand’s development at Hobsonville is not expected to begin until at least 2009, nearly a decade after the project began, and does he agree that more affordable housing needs to be made available well before construction is completed in Hobsonville if we are to adequately address the current housing affordability crisis?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I am pleased with progress at Hobsonville. I think it is a very important project, and it requires a lot of consultation with the local community, and a lot of consent processes. But what I can tell the member is that the Government has moved in a whole range of areas, from the Welcome Home Loan, to KiwiSaver, to a piloted shared equity scheme. We have contributed to the supply of affordable homes in high-pressure areas like Hobsonville—and soon Weymouth—and we are supporting community and local government initiatives. Indeed, we have already spent $99 million doing shared partnerships with local government, and just recently announced $220 million for Wellington. These are really fantastic initiatives to try to increase the supply of affordable houses—real homes for real New Zealanders, not empty slogans.

Madam SPEAKER: Chris Auchinvole and David Bennett, you are both on your last warning.

Judith Collins: I seek leave of the House to show the consistency of Mr Carter’s statements by lodging this document in which he refused to hand over cellphone records to police and refused to sign his police statement when police investigated the “paintergate” forgery from his Prime Minister.

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

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I seek leave to table an article from the New Zealand Herald in which the Auckland City Missioner says that the plan announced by housing Minister Chris Carter to provide more affordable homes for Aucklanders is commendable.

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

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I seek leave to table a newsletter from the Greenhithe Residents and Ratepayers Association, which lauds the Hobsonville development.

Leave granted.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table a Radio New Zealand transcript in which Chris Carter complains about the time it is taking for his building consent for his bach on Waiheke.

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the census data showing that since Labour has been the Government, homeownership has declined by 5 percent, or 76,000 New Zealanders.

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

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I seek leave to table a list of projects that the Government has done with local government where it has spent $99 million building homes.

Leave granted.

Electoral Finance Bill—Definition of “Publication”

8. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: What is the definition of “publication”, in relation to an advertisement, under clause 4 of the Electoral Finance Bill?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): If the member reads the Electoral Finance Bill, he will see that the definition is as provided for in clause 4(1) of the bill, in (a) to (h) under “publication”.

Hon Bill English: Why is the Minister reluctant to tell the House that that definition will mean that issuing a press release, sending an email, or posting a letter will constitute publishing an election advertisement, if those documents disagree or agree with anything any political party is associated with?

Hon MARK BURTON: I am not reluctant to inform members about the contents of the bill, at all. I just assumed that other members, unlike that member, have read it.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Will the Electoral Finance Bill prevent criminal gangs such as the Mongrel Mob or Black Power from buying political influence through the funding of various political parties’ campaigns; if not, what justification can he give for allowing organisations that openly engage in crime to gain political patronage?

Hon MARK BURTON: Such groups would be caught not only by this legislation but also by other legislation the Government has before the House at this very time.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that, further to the material from the Littlies Lobby that was discussed yesterday, a press release issued yesterday asking people to take a stand against child abuse, and announcing that “New Zealand worriers” were going to do so, will constitute the publication of an election advertisement, and that anyone who forwards it to someone else will be regarded as publishing it?

Hon MARK BURTON: No, I cannot confirm that that would be caught within the meaning of the definition in this legislation. But I can confirm for the member that the sort of publication referred to in this letter to Messrs Brash and Key, indicating an intention to run a million-dollar campaign to oppose a Government whilst trying to avoid the limitations of the law, will be caught and will be prevented.

Heather Roy: In relation to political publications and advertising, how does he square his answer yesterday on the importance of freedom of speech with the provisions of this bill, whereby New Zealanders cannot spend their own money to express their views but this Labour Government can take money from every Kiwi to promote its propaganda?

Hon MARK BURTON: The premise of the member’s question is fundamentally incorrect. This legislation precisely protects the right of every New Zealander to participate fully in the electoral process. What it prevents is the sort of abuse of the electoral system perpetrated by the Brethren with the full knowledge of the National Party—and the full knowledge of Mr Key, who still has not owned up to it—which was seeking to enable others to get round New Zealand’s law in order to overcome the voices of ordinary New Zealanders when they want to participate in their electoral process.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that this press release issued by the Council of Trade Unions criticising National’s policy of a 90-day trial period would constitute election advertising because it was issued, because it was disseminated by electronic means, and because it was stored electronically in a way that was accessible to the public, and that if someone printed it off and stuck it on the noticeboard in the smoko room, that would make that person a “promoter” under the bill, and guilty of publishing election advertising material; and is he aware that the Council of Trade Unions put out about 140 of these press releases in the last election campaign, and that in the next one they will all have to be costed and counted?

Hon MARK BURTON: I can confirm that members of the public are fully entitled to continue to participate in normal communication among themselves. I can also confirm that it is the right of New Zealanders not to have their electoral process corrupted by the sort of behaviour we saw from the National Party and its mates, which Mr Key was fully aware of. An attempt at a million-dollar campaign to subvert the electoral process will not be permitted under this bill.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that he has had about 6 months to think about what all these definitions might be, and that it is not good enough for him to come to the House and keep saying he does not know; and does he know that if someone runs an ad campaign saying “Eat More Vegetables”, that will count as political advertising in election year, because any number of parties are against obesity?

Hon MARK BURTON: Firstly, the assertion at the front end of that question is clearly not the case, and, secondly, the member is clearly wrong. I suggest that before coming back to the House for a seminar he reads the bill.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that even for those who have read the bill, and who want more information about the meaning of the bill, he cannot answer simple questions as to whether press releases, emails, letters, fliers, posters, or billboards are covered by his definition of election advertising; why cannot he answer those questions?

Hon MARK BURTON: Because if the member had read the bill, he would know that it depends entirely on the context of any document and what it seeks to do. In other words, if a document seeks to support the election or to oppose the election of a given candidate or party, it is within the context of the bill; if it does not, it is not. The example the member most recently gave is a patent nonsense.

Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Te Arawa

9. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: He aha tā te Minita ka mahi, whai muri i te kupu whakatūturu a te Taraipiunara o Waitangi i te tahi o Here-turi-kōkā 2007, e kore e taea e ia te tautoko te whakataunga a Te Arawa e ai ki tōna āhua o nāianei, otirā, ki tā rātau tūtohutanga hoki e kī nei, hikia mō tētahi wā te whakataunga kei te whakatakotoria e rātau, kia puta rānō tērā ka hua mai i tētahi wānanga whakatau aratohu, mō te tohatoha i ngā whenua ngāherehere a te Karauna?

[What action is the Minister taking following the Waitangi Tribunal’s definitive statement of 1 August 2000 that it could not endorse the Te Arawa settlement in its current form, leading to its recommendation that the proposed settlement be delayed pending the outcome of a forum to decide on high-level guidelines for the allocation of Crown forest lands?]

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Ministers are undertaking careful analysis of the report from which that statement comes, along with other recent tribunal reports. A key issue in our analysis is the consistency of recommendations and their implications for this settlement and other settlements.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Mā te aha ka taea e ngā iwi te whakawhitiwhiti whakaaro me te Karauna i raro i te pono me te tika i runga i ngā pānui a te Taraipiunara o Waitangi, arā, “he āwangawanga anō wā rātau mō te āhua o tēnei tono kua tatū, ā, ka taka te āhua o te ngoikore ki runga i ērā iwi kāore anō kia tatū wā rātau tono, ā, tārewa tonu ngā tono i te rohe o Te Puku o te Ika a Māui.?

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[How can any iwi negotiate with the Crown in good faith, when the Waitangi Tribunal has reported again that “it has grave concerns regarding the potential negative impact of this settlement on overlapping iwi, and on the durability of future Central North Island settlements”?]

Hon MARK BURTON: I think, as I indicated to the member, the complexity of some of the tribunal’s rulings and the apparent, in some cases, contradictions between them are matters that Ministers are looking at very carefully. But the member’s concern has to be reconciled with the fact that to reach the point that the group in question has reached required it to undertake a process of rigorous mandate acquisition. That mandate was tested not only with its own members but by the High Court and by the tribunal itself, and it has been upheld. I say to the member that the reverse of his question is: how would one maintain the confidence of claimants if the Crown turned its back on those who had engaged with it in good-faith negotiation following the tribunal report?

Dave Hereora: Has the Minister received any advice from other claimant groups relating to the recent tribunal reports?

Hon MARK BURTON: The Crown, as members may know, is actively engaged at various stages with over 20 claimant groups, and a number of those have expressed concern recently about any unnecessary delay to their negotiations—particularly those who have been properly mandated to undertake negotiations with the Crown by the people whom they represent. That further, I think, illustrates the challenge of fairly balancing the legitimate interests of different and complex claims.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Ka aro ake ia, kāore rānei ki ngā tohutohu a te Taraipiunara o Waitangi, ,kia kaua te Karauna e tohu ko ngā iwi e ngākaunuitia ana e ia ka mutu, ko te whakatau whāiti nei i ngā hiahia o ngā iwi, ā, ka ahatia ngā whakautu hei whakatika i ngā tikanga whakahaere?

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Will he ignore the advice of the tribunal that the Crown cannot continue to pick favourites and make decisions on tribal interests in isolation; if not, how will the response to such advice change the process?]

Hon MARK BURTON: Frankly, I think the assertion that the Crown picked favourites is incorrect. The Te Arawa Kaihautū Executive Council, in the case we are discussing, and the people it represents made their own decisions in continuing in direct negotiations, as did those iwi and hapū who chose not to participate or to engage in the tribunal process. The Crown has endeavoured to respect each of those decisions: the decisions of those who have chosen to engage directly with the Crown, of those who have chosen not to, and of those who have chosen to engage with the tribunal.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Hei āhea ia whakatakoto mai ai i te ture whakatau kerēme ki te Whare nei hei kōkiri whakamua i te tono o ngā Kaihautū o Te Arawa mō ngā whenua ngāherehere o te Karauna 51,000 heketea te rahi?

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[When is he intending to introduce legislation into the House to advance the settlement with Ngā Kaihautū o Te Arawa over the 51,000 hectares of Crown forestry lands?]

Hon MARK BURTON: The introduction date of any legislation relating to that settlement is yet to be determined.

Hospitals—Triage Benchmarks

10. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Which hospitals in New Zealand are meeting all three of the Government’s triage benchmarks for safe and timely treatment of emergency department patients?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Most hospitals do not, because most hospitals in New Zealand do not have emergency departments. However, of those that do, the first and most critical target is nearly always met but two others are usually not met.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why was an 83-year-old woman with dementia forced to spend 4 days in North Shore Hospital’s emergency department with a broken hip, lying on a trolley under glaring fluorescent lights, without any painkillers or anything to eat or drink—for 4 days—and is that the sort of care New Zealanders can expect for our oldest and most vulnerable under this Minister?

Hon PETE HODGSON: As I have advised the House on many occasions, I am not able to comment on individual cases, first of all, without the permission of the person involved and, secondly, without notice from the member, who hides the personal issue behind another sort of question. I am, however, really happy to look at that issue, if the member wishes to approach me and give me any detail to enable me to identify the patient he says was thus treated.

Barbara Stewart: Is the Minister aware of comments made by his ministry’s principal medical adviser that there is a steadily increasing demand on acute services and that health services have not changed sufficiently to cope; if so, what, if anything, is being done to deal with the increased demand?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, I am aware of the comments made by the ministry’s principal medical adviser to that effect and, indeed, of the comments that followed in the couple of sentences immediately after, in which he pointed to ways forward to try to reduce pressure on emergency departments.

Sue Moroney: When was data on emergency department treatment times first collected across New Zealand, and why was it collected?

Hon PETE HODGSON: It was first collected in June 2000, 6 months after this Government came into office, and it was collected because we wanted to know how good our emergency departments were. The previous Government apparently did not want to know. An international comparison of emergency departments and waiting times between Australia, Canada, Britain, the United States, and New Zealand showed New Zealand emergency departments to be the best-performing of all five nations. I would like to thank staff in emergency departments; that is a splendid result.

Hon Tony Ryall: How does it show that this Labour Government values and respects health professionals when the Government’s Wellington bureaucrats have decided to stop the supply of grated cheese to Wellington Hospital, so that surgeons can no longer have cheese on toast because it is considered too high in fat; and is it not the fact that the only thing on toast in this House is this Minister, question time after question time?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member may not be aware that Wellington bureaucrats of any shape or description do not decide which New Zealanders eat cheese and which New Zealanders do not. They do not decide that; they do offer some advice on food classification, and on what foods might be eaten regularly and on what other foods might be eaten less regularly. But I think a more important point is that in this country, each day, 1,000 New Zealanders go through an emergency department doorway and are triaged in such a way that those who need treatment most are treated first. In particular, those who need immediate treatment are treated immediately—not after 4 days, 4 hours, or 4 minutes, but immediately. That is why emergency departments exist, and that is why they operate in that way.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Four days with a broken hip!

Hon PETE HODGSON: Let me put it another way to that member, who cannot bear to hear anything resembling the truth. If a two-car accident happens and the people fetch up at the emergency department, other people will wait, even if they were there first. That is how triaging works, and that is how it has to work.

Madam SPEAKER: Would members please keep it down. It is very difficult to hear and concentrate on who wishes to speak.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Does the Minister really think he has his priorities right when the North Shore Hospital’s accident and emergency department is on the brink of collapse, it is failing to meet waiting-time standards, and it has patients stacked in the corridors and in ambulances, yet he has district health board managers focusing their energies on a plan to phase out full-fat milk from the hospital tearoom?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member, like his colleague, seems to make light of something that I do not think we should make light of. I do not think we should make light of it. I just say to the member—although the Opposition may not wish to hear it—that the Waitemata District Health Board was the worst performing district health board in the last round, as far as emergency department waiting times were concerned; it was the worst-performing district health board in the country. I am advised that in recent weeks—in the last 2 or 3 weeks—as far as triage 1 patients are concerned, there was a 100 percent delivery on that target. One hundred percent of people who needed to be seen immediately were seen immediately—100 percent.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why—with the Government being able to release whatever health priorities it wants this afternoon—are the Minister’s bureaucrats, who should be trusting and valuing our health professionals, deciding to restrict the size of the chocolate bars those people can have in their vending machines and deciding that they cannot have cheese on toast between operations, and why are the bureaucrats now prohibiting full-fat milk in hospital tearooms, when surely we should be relying on these highly intelligent health professionals to make those decisions for themselves and trusting and valuing their contribution to the New Zealand public health system?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Whatever food is sold or not sold in a hospital canteen is not done by virtue of some edict from the centre. The member is aware that this afternoon the health system in New Zealand is about to take another significant step forward, and he wants to rain on the parade. I invite him to turn up and see what a Government that is not lacking in ambition and is determined to have better health for New Zealanders is able to do, and compare it with the fact that after 8 years in Opposition, he has developed a five-point policy plan for health that has only four points in it.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a fistful of reports of how New Zealanders are missing out on emergency department support—

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

Children—Family Education

11. GORDON COPELAND (Independent) to the Minister of Social Development and Employment: Does the Government have any plans to address the issues of fatherhood, marriage preparation, and marriage enrichment to ensure that more children are raised in a safe, loving, and caring home?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister of Social Development and Employment): The Labour-led Government wants to ensure that all Kiwi kids, living in all sorts of families, live in safe, loving, and caring homes. Since we became the Government, we have set a task, for example, of raising 130,000 out of poverty. We have done that through our income-related rents policy and the Working for Families policy, and by reducing health costs. We have had a real impact, of course, on families, which has made life safer for those young people. We have been investing $1.6 billion to increase the amount of support available for Working for Families to children, which means that three out of four New Zealand families are now enjoying that support, and that undoubtedly is making life better for those children.

Gordon Copeland: Why does the Government continue to ignore family form, when the evidence demonstrates that, on average, a home headed by a married couple produces the best outcomes in terms of health, education, and income level, and by far the lowest involvement in the criminal justice system?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: At the risk of giving the member a sociology lesson, I think that the evidence actually shows that as long as the family form maintains a safe, caring, nurturing environment with clear boundaries for behaviour, then whatever the family form is, those children will be in the proper kind of environment, and that is the evidence that this Government follows.

Gordon Copeland: Is the Minister aware that a sample of 7,000 young people involved with the youth justice system each year indicates that just 12 percent are living with both their mum and dad, 28 percent with only one parent, and a massive 60 percent with neither their mum nor their dad; and does this not provide ample evidence that family form, especially the presence of a mum and dad, is all-important?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think everybody in the House would say that it is preferable if children can remain with their biological parents. However, unless the member has a bill intending to force people to stay together, we have to deal with the facts as they are. That is why I say that we reinforce good, positive relationships within any family form that exists in New Zealand.

Gordon Copeland: I seek the leave of the House to table a Youth Court paper setting out the statistics that I quoted in my supplementary question.

Leave granted.

Gordon Copeland: I seek the leave of the House to table a statement from the Chief Family Court Judge saying that very few youth offenders are from stable, two-parent homes.

Leave granted.

Recognised Seasonal Employer Policy—Foreign Workers

12. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Will he give an assurance that foreign workers in New Zealand under the Recognised Seasonal Employer policy will enjoy the same conditions as New Zealand workers?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): All workers in New Zealand, regardless of nationality or citizenship, are subject to New Zealand employment and industrial legislation, including the Employment Relations Act, the Holidays Act, the Minimum Wage Act, and so on. Relevant immigration policies, including the Recognised Seasonal Employer policy, are designed to support and respect that.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Why should Kiwi workers have to pay for their own accommodation and their own transport to and from work, and organise their own pastoral care, while foreign workers under the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme have, in addition to their wages, their accommodation provided and paid for, transport to and from work provided if required, pastoral care provided, and half their air fare paid?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: In the first place, the member should check his facts. Nothing in the Recognised Seasonal Employer policy requires employers to pay for the accommodation of their foreign workers.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Has the Minister seen any reports on seasonal labour?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes, I have seen a report in the Marlborough Express of 20 July 2007 in which a senior National Party politician implies that backpackers will no longer be available for seasonal labour in Marlborough. This politician has leapt in before he has acquainted himself with the facts of the policy. Last year more than 33,000 backpackers were approved to visit New Zealand under the working holidays scheme—a scheme that was, is, and always was, proposed to continue. The comment is yet more evidence that that politician, Mr John Key, was either uninformed or dissembling.

Peter Brown: Noting the Minister’s answer to the principal question, is he aware that many of these seasonal workers will not readily understand New Zealand’s employment law; if so, does he have confidence in the Department of Labour to monitor the situation, and can he briefly advise the House what penalties will apply to any employer who exploits these people?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The answer is yes, and for that reason a suitable induction programme has been proposed as part of the scheme that ensures that workers are aware of their rights in New Zealand. [Interruption] That may be one of the points that the member opposite disagrees with, but I think it is a prudent step in order to ensure the sustainability and quality of this labour supply.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Has the Minister seen any other reports on seasonal labour?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes. I have seen a press release by Horticulture New Zealand, dated 30 April 2007, in which the president, Andrew Fenton, was said to be “delighted to bring to life a programme designed by horticulture and viticulture employers”.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Recently?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes, this week. Now that Mr John Key knows that horticulturalists support the scheme, is he going to flip-flop on this one, too?

Craig Foss: Will the Minister apologise to horticultural industry leaders for walking out of a meeting with those same representatives when they asked him to discuss their concerns about the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme and the ending of the Seasonal Work Permit scheme?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I certainly will not, because that did not occur. I suggest to the member that, like his two senior colleagues, he should check his facts before putting his mouth in gear.

Craig Foss: Will the Minister apologise to the growers from Hawke’s Bay at a Recognised Seasonal Employer meeting organised by the Government who were told by various Government officials that it was their fault for planting the trees in the first place?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Based on the rather dismal track record of the member opposite so far in this question in terms of his command of the facts, I have no reason to believe the veracity of the presumption.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is that appalling track record on consultation the reason why the Pipfruit New Zealand chairman, Ian Palmer, stated in this month’s edition of Rural News that the situation is “becoming a major fiasco. The horticulture industry has tried to work in good faith with Ministers Benson-Pope and Cunliffe, with little or no response. They just do not want to hear our concerns …”?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I suggest the member check with the leaders of Horticulture New Zealand and New Zealand Winegrowers, who were in my office this week, and who are working very productively with officials on a transition package to support the Recognised Seasonal Employer programme. I can tell the member that those discussions are going extremely well, the industry supports the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme, and the only people with the pip are Opposition members.

Craig Foss: I seek leave to table an article from the Press of 2 August, entitled “Government admits flaws on Labour policy”.

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

Craig Foss: I seek leave to table an article on the Stuff website from New Zealand Winegrowers entitled “Government departments have no idea how a business operates”.

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

Craig Foss: I seek leave to table a press release from Horticulture New Zealand, dated 1 August, that includes the quote: “Unless we”—

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

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I seek leave to table an article from the Marlborough Express, dated 20 July 2007, entitled “Key slams employment scheme”.

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

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I seek leave to table the current edition of Rural News, which quotes the chairman of Pipfruit New Zealand—

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

Craig Foss: I seek leave to table a note, which confirms that I was at the Havelock North meeting where growers were told it was their fault for growing the trees.

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

ENDS

© Scoop Media