Questions to Ministers

Electoral Finance Bill—Select Committee Changes

1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Which aspects of the Electoral Finance Bill prompted her to make the statement that “obviously there’s going to have to be some change in the select committee”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Prime Minister: The bill is a complex piece of legislation, and the role of the select committee is to recommend desirable changes.

John Key: What motivated the Prime Minister to say there are obviously going to have to be changes to the bill, if she appears to have no idea what has to change or why it has to change?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, this is very important legislation, and the select committee is the appropriate place for a range of issues to be debated. For example, the National Party might like to debate clause 103(2), because that deals with the GST issue; and during the last campaign it was clear the National Party did not understand anything about GST, and this bill is a chance for National to clear up that matter.

Darren Hughes: Any there any overseas precedents for the major provisions of this bill?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: That is an important question, because it goes to the heart of the fact that this bill is simply an effort to try to draw New Zealand into line with other jurisdictions such as Canada and the United Kingdom. If we have legislation that matches those jurisdictions, I think we will be part of the mainstream. I am sure Mr Key and Mr English, and others, will be looking forward to the opportunity of being part of the mainstream, because they place a lot of emphasis on that.

John Key: Has it always been the view of the Prime Minister that there were significant issues that would need to be sorted out by the select committee; if so, why was the bill introduced in its current form?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think the Prime Minister has always been aware that this is a complex area and that there would be input from all parties, once the bill reached the select committee. I repeat, I imagine the National Party is anxious to debate clauses such as clause 103(2), because it did not understand the old law around GST, and this is a chance to get it clear.

John Key: Is it not the situation that the Government got the bill completely wrong, in that it was trying to pull a fast one over New Zealanders, but now having read the editorials around the country, and realising the backlash from many people who actually support the Government, it is trying to distance itself from the bill, and that is why it will not explain the obvious differences?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No. I know that the member would not have spent a lot of time in select committees, because of his meteoric rise to the front bench, and the busyness that brings to his life. But select committees are the appropriate place to have this kind of in-depth discussion about complex legislation, which of course impacts on all parties. So the Prime Minister has always been aware that the select committee was an appropriate place to have that discussion.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Seeing the issue of fairness has been put into question, are there any reports thus far on this bill that suggest that the legislation should prevent one political party from advertising on radio or television, at the expense of a $100,000 fine on each and every occasion, such as was put into law by the National Party against New Zealand First in 1993?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Simply going to the heart of the question, so I do work within the responsibility of the Prime Minister, this bill is very much about fairness. That is absolutely right. There is the notion that people, for example, may be able to spend a lot of money trying to drive an election in a particular way, as the Exclusive Brethren appeared to be trying to do. This bill is aimed at ensuring that everyone gets a fair deal, that a vote counts, and that people do not feel that someone with a lot of money is stealing an election from them.

John Key: If it was obvious to the Prime Minister on Monday that changes were needed, why can she not answer the very simple question about what is obvious that needs to be changed, or is the situation that Cabinet simply cannot work out what is wrong, in the same way it cannot work out what to do about rising interest rates, rising crime, and falling education standards?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: On the latter issues, I imagine the member is simply waiting to adopt our policies at some time, since they seem to be working as well as they are. On a previous question—the issue of change—I imagine the Prime Minister was very aware of the National Party’s discomfort around the GST issue, for example, and she would know that it would want to debate that and get it clear in the legislation.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What is the Government’s view as to the role, constitutionally, of a select committee of this Parliament: is its job to rubber stamp everything that Cabinet does, or is it to hear public submissions on proposed legislation and give a fully competent report back to Parliament—which of those two roles does the Government support?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It is the Government’s view that select committees are a place where people go to do real work and make real changes to legislation, particularly under MMP where, of course, select committees have become increasingly independent and have made real changes to legislation on the way through. In the case of this legislation, we have a range of parties that will have strong views in relation to it; the select committee is a great place to debate those.

John Key: What sort of Government is it that talks tough, brings in a bill that is about one-quarter of what it promised, cobbles together a majority by the most slender of margins on an Electoral Act that is something that should have bipartisan support, and then, when it finally gets the legislation into the House, it realises it has so rapidly lost control of the whole process that it itself is backing away from it; or is it what all New Zealanders know—a hopeless outgoing Government?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It is an excellent Government. It is one that wants legislation that will ensure fairness and one that wants to ensure that all parties have an opportunity to raise critical issues, such as why they do not understand GST. I imagine the National Party is really keen to get that issue sorted out.

John Key: If the Government has not lost control of the process and it is still sure it has the numbers, why is it that on Monday the Prime Minister said that the changes needed to be made to the bill were obvious, but on Tuesday and Wednesday she has not a clue what those changes are, even though they were so obvious on Monday?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister has an open mind but not a vacant one. In other words, she is ensuring that there is debate around this very serious subject and the member opposite, I am sure, is looking forward to making sure this legislation is as good and as fair as it can be.

Schools—Enrolment Schemes

2. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reports, if any, has he received on possible changes to school enrolment schemes?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): I have seen a report stating: “We would like to relax the school zoning”—effectively abolishing a child’s right to attend his or her local school. However, I have also seen a report arguing that the removal of a child’s right to attend his or her local school would be “morally reprehensible”. The first quote comes from John Key, and the second from Katherine Rich. The question is: who is calling the shots in the National Party, or is this another case of “a different day, a different story”?

Charles Chauvel: Has the Minister seen any further reports on possible changes to school enrolment schemes?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, I have seen a report suggesting that school enrolment schemes should be abolished, to give parents more choice. However, I have also seen a report suggesting that in areas where the school population is growing, there may have to be limitations on choice. Both of those reports came from Bill English—another example of the National Party’s policy of “a different day, a different story”.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Can the Minister confirm that the geographical zoning of overcrowded schools was re-legislated for in November 1998 by a National Government, supported by ACT, because of the disastrous outcomes of the removal of such zoning by Lockwood Smith in the early 1990s?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can confirm that it was the then National Government that introduced school zoning and that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith was the responsible Minister. Now, of course, National appears to be against it. I think we have an expansion of the National principle: “a different decade, a different story”.

Katherine Rich: If the Minister is on a maniacal crusade to uncover the truth, why does he not monitor his own utterances, because he was the one who promised the parents of 3 and 4-year-old children that they would “definitely get 20 hours’ free early childhood education in July” and that by the end of this year all junior classes would have no more than 15 students in them; or is this just a case of a different story on a different day?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: That is an excellent question. Anybody who goes back and checks will find I said that 92,000 children were eligible if they were 3-4 years of age and in a teacher-led centre. He or she will find that our policy says that by the end of 2008 the 1:15 ratio will be in place.

Charles Chauvel: Has the Minister seen any further reports suggesting that parental choices should be limited when it comes to education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes. I have seen a report suggesting that Labour’s 20 hours’ free early childhood education policy should be retained because “we want all these kids to be able to have 20 hours’ free”. However, I have also seen a report suggesting “we won’t keep it”. Both of those reports came from John Key—another case of “a different day, a different story”.

Electoral Finance Bill—Definition of Electoral Expense

3. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: Can he confirm that the definition of an election expense in the Electoral Finance Bill excludes anything done in relation to a member of Parliament in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Yes; the bill makes it clear that where a member of Parliament is acting in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament, and undertaking activities consistent with that position, that action falls outside the definition of candidate or party activity.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that under existing law legitimate Parliamentary expenditure by a member of Parliament can count as an election expense in the 3 months before the election, and therefore counts as a contribution to total party campaign expenditure?

Hon MARK BURTON: I can confirm that clauses 58 and 59 of this bill are entirely consistent with the current approach taken in the Electoral Act. The member might like to refer to section 213(1)(c) for that reference.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister now confirm that the changes in the law regarding the definition of an election expense as it relates to MPs will make the issuing of a pledge card quite legitimate in the next election, when it was illegal in the last election?

Hon MARK BURTON: No, I cannot—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, it is!

Hon MARK BURTON: I ask the member Dr Smith to just for once listen to the answer before commenting on it.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister now tell us how his proposed bill will deal with the pledge card that was issued by the Labour Party at the last election using parliamentary money, and that was found to be illegal and a breach of the spending cap because it breached current law?

Hon MARK BURTON: This bill does not deal with the Parliamentary Service Act. It has nothing to do with the Parliamentary Service Act or with the spending of parliamentarians.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister so unfamiliar with this bill that he does not realise that it excludes from the definition of election expenses those expenses incurred by members of Parliament in carrying out their duties; that that is a significant change in the law; and that it is designed to allow Labour to issue a pledge card this time legally, when it was illegal to do so at the last election?

Hon MARK BURTON: This bill clearly enables members of Parliament to continue to go about their rightful business as members of Parliament. Any activity undertaken as a candidate counts.

Hon Bill English: Why is the definition of political advertisement so sweeping that if someone wants to run a meeting on dog control in his or her street, and invites five neighbours to it, that person has to make statutory declarations in order to comply with the Act, but the bill has the effect of making the Labour Party pledge card, a highly political piece of propaganda, legal?

Hon MARK BURTON: The first part of the question is a nonsense, and the second proposition that the member raises has simply nothing to do with the scope of this bill. This bill is about election candidates and parties participating in an election campaign.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the bill propose to allow, or, thus far, have any of the submissions made to the Minister, as the Minister in charge of the legislation, suggested that it is right for a political party to secretly hide away in trusts and other financial devices millions of dollars to be used in a campaign with that party’s full knowledge—of the type that saw National take $1 million from Fay Richwhite in 1990—which is totally against the spirit of the Electoral Act of this country?

Hon MARK BURTON: I have to admit that no submissions I have received and no advice I have received from anyone have sought to defend openly that practice. But it is interesting that the so-called main Opposition party seems intent on trying to distract attention from the central purpose of this bill, which is the prevention of the rorting that we saw from the Exclusive Brethren, with the full knowledge of Mr Key and the National Party, at the last election. I am sorry to say that no amount of smoke-screening will distract this Government or the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders from ensuring that that does not happen again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will it be permissible under this legislation for a third party outside of this House, by the use of its electoral donation money to a political party, to buy that political party’s policy-making machine, the nature, shape, and character of which happened in 1990 with the industrial relations policy of the National Party?

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise the same point of order today as I did yesterday, which is that it is outside the Standing Orders for a member to allege that any member in the House has been influenced in that way.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Madam Speaker, before we rush to the idea that just because some members do not like the truth it is therefore a matter that cannot be raised in this House, I remind you that I was on the front bench of the National Party when the Business Roundtable not only bought the policy but put two people in the National Party organisation to write the industrial relations policy. Those are the facts. Mr English can disguise the truth, but the reality is that is a political party being bought off.

Madam SPEAKER: As long as the member in his question—and I was listening carefully—was not making a personal reflection, then it would seem that the question was in order.

Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave for the Rt Hon Winston Peters to be given the opportunity to explain why he sat in that group for over 2 years knowing what he knew, and never bothered to resign.

Madam SPEAKER: As the member knows, that is not a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given what Gerry Brownlee has said, I now seek leave to give a personal explanation of precisely what I did back then.

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

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. As a member of that caucus, I take personal exception to the slur; therefore, under the Standing Orders it is out of order. What is more, the member is not telling the truth—he was not on the front bench.

Hon MARK BURTON: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I say it is hardly credible for Dr Smith to get up and make that point, when his own shadow Leader of the House prevented Mr Peters from making the very explanation that the member is now critical of not having.

Madam SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter. There was no personal reflection at the time, and I did listen really carefully. It is time to move on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Anyone around this place with half a memory knows that I was on the front bench of the National Party, sitting right there, until October of 1989.

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. As a member quite rightly says, that is not a point of order, but most of the points of order have not been points of order, and members will be accused by me of creating disorder in this House if they raise similar points in the future. It is time to move on to the substance.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: The member heard what I said. I have ruled on the point. It has to be a new point of order.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: The Standing Orders are perfectly clear: if a member takes offence at an allegation made in this House, then it is outside of the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders are perfectly clear on that. As a member of the caucus at that time, I take personal offence at that outlandish allegation.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Madam Speaker, I submit to you that there is no such Standing Order. On occasion, a Speaker’s ruling—in my view, a very marginal Speaker’s ruling—has allowed one member’s word to be taken over another. There is a clear, factual reference in this case, and there is nothing in the Standing Orders that says that just because one member disagrees and takes offence, the remark has to be withdrawn or not proceeded with. There is no such Standing Order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: To clarify the matter, back in 1987-89 there was a front bench of 12 members in the National Party; Lockwood Smith—

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated, all of you. I listened very carefully to the first question. There was certainly no personal reflection; there might have been a general statement made about a party, but there was no personal reflection. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith is right that members have a right to object to reflections on them, but there is not a right to have contestable statements automatically ruled out of order in this House. I think the best way to proceed at this stage is for the Rt Hon Winston Peters to please rephrase his question in a way that makes it within the Standing Orders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that the member asking the question was actually on the front bench of the National Party, which in those days included talks with the Business Roundtable but not with the rest of the caucus, which included Dr Lockwood Smith—and that is why he does not know—is it the case that the bill will not allow a political party’s policy to be bought and written outside of this place—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Stop living in the past, old man!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who looks old over there? That member looked geriatric when he arrived. Have a look in the mirror! [Interruption] And slightly zany, and slightly nutty.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please continue with his question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does such a provision in the legislation allow for a political party’s policy to be bought and written outside of here for money, of the type, shape, character, and nature that was behind the National Party’s industrial relations policy in the 1990s?

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer you to Standing Order 371(1)(c) and ask you to reflect on that question. I think you will find that the entire content of that question breaches that particular Standing Order.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes. I rule the question out of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Seeing as the people raising the protest—namely, the front bench of the National Party—were not then part of the process, as they were not then on the front bench of the National Party, how can they argue against my word? I was there and they were not. So, Madam Speaker, with respect, I think you are wrong to rule me out of order.

Madam SPEAKER: You may well do. Would the member please be seated.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have now had four or, I think, five interventions from the member, none of which has been a point of order. I know that this puts you in a difficult situation, because he calls or a point of order then gets up and makes a speech, but I would suggest that because you have discretion over the call, you have the ability not to take the member’s call if he continues to abuse the process. I do not really care what he says, but no member should be able to use the point of order mechanism as a way of making a series of speeches. That has happened, and I would be interested to know what action you intend to take to ensure that it does not continue, or we could be here all afternoon listening to the same speech over and over again.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. His point has considerable force. I tell all members in this House—several of whom on other sides of the House have also raised similar points of order that are not points of order—that I will not take any further points of order on this issue. If points of order are raised, I will be asking the member who raises them to leave the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: On this matter?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek to raise a point of order that is new, and I think I am entitled to put it. It is simply that you ruled my question out of order, and I am asking now whether I can ask the question in a different way.

Madam SPEAKER: I gave the member that opportunity and he abused it. I gave the member an opportunity to rephrase his question to bring it within the Standing Orders. You get one chance. I used my discretion to do that, to assist the member. You do not get another chance to do so.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is nothing in the Speakers’ rulings or the Standing Orders that suggests that just because someone protests at the truth, and feels personally upset by it, the truth is ruled out of order. I used the phrase “the National Party”, and I was talking about a front bench of the National Party of which not one member there was a member.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please be seated—[Interruption] No, would the member please be seated. And leave the Chamber. The member has challenged my ruling. I explicitly said we would have no more on that issue. I have ruled on it, and the member is now creating disorder in this House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber.

State Services Commissioner—Ministerial Briefing

4. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of State Services: Is it the case that the State Services Commissioner has a “no surprises” obligation under Public Service protocols to brief the Minister on any matters that might draw political comment; if so, how can she reconcile this obligation with her previous statement that she was first informed on 3 July of employment issues involving Ms Setchell at the Ministry for the Environment that would have been known to Dr Prebble in late May?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): As I advised the House yesterday, the State Services Commissioner has convened an investigation under section 25 of the State Sector Act 1988. This investigation will establish the facts of the matter, including how well the commissioner has met his obligations.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister stand by her assertion to this House that she knew nothing of this matter until 3 July, and that even though Dr Prebble, Mr Logan, Mr Rennie, Mr Benson-Pope, the leader of the Opposition’s office, Mr Hurring, and whomever he might have reported to on the ninth floor of the Beehive all knew about it in late May, she apparently did not hear about it until 3 July; does she stand by that advice to the House?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I certainly do.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister expect us to believe that although this matter was known, obviously, to Mr Benson-Pope, was quite clearly known to Mr Hurring and to whomever he discussed it with on the ninth floor, and was known also to Dr Prebble, to Mr Logan, to Mr Rennie, and to numerous people inside the Ministry for the Environment and numerous people inside the Beehive, she as Minister of State Services had not heard of this matter and knew nothing of it until Mr Rennie told her on 3 July?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, I do, because it is the truth.

Gerry Brownlee: Will the Minister, then, confirm that the matters relating to Ms Setchell’s employment were never discussed in any context at any time around or near a Cabinet meeting?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I have no knowledge of this being raised at a Cabinet committee meeting. If other members do, they can certainly say so, but I have no memory of that.

Gerry Brownlee: Further to her response to my question yesterday, has she now inquired as to whether Mr Prebble kept file notes on this issue and whether those file notes were handed to Mr Rennie prior to him producing a report that she publicly endorsed on 20 July?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, because I will wait for the outcome of the inquiry, where all the facts will be looked at.

Gerry Brownlee: If we are to accept that the Minister knew nothing of this matter for the entire 5 weeks between the Benson-Pope outburst and the report from Iain Rennie to the Minister, what inspired her after that to ask Mr Rennie to investigate this matter?

Hon ANNETTE KING: At no time did I ask Mr Rennie to investigate the matter.

Casinos—Loans Sharking

5. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Will he call for a broad-ranging inquiry into casinos and gambling in New Zealand, following last night’s One News investigation, which uncovered a loan shark operating in Skycity Casino?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs): I am advised that the man identified in the One News item last night has been known to the department for some time. It has been investigating his actions already. As part of Sky City’s Auckland standard operating procedures, Sky City is required to report to the Department of Internal Affairs on any undesirable behaviour and, specifically, loan-sharking behaviour. An inquiry is under way already, and officials are engaged with Sky City to establish whether the casino has met its operating requirements; if it is found that it has not, swift action will be taken.

Sue Bradford: Why on earth has action taken so long to take place, then, if the department and the police have known about this gentleman’s activities for such a long time?

Hon RICK BARKER: The matter of conducting an investigation is left to officials, not to me. They are the appropriate people to do it, and they do it at a time and in a manner that they feel is appropriate to the information they have.

Dianne Yates: What specific work is under way to prevent behaviour like loan sharking and money laundering in casinos?

Hon RICK BARKER: I have directed officials from the Department of Internal Affairs to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the issues around loan sharking so that we can take a Government approach to discontinuing such predatory behaviour. The Department of Internal Affairs has been working with the police, with justice, with commerce, and with health to ensure that we have appropriate laws and appropriate operating procedures to do our utmost to stamp out this reprehensible behaviour.

Dr Pita Sharples: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. How does the Minister explain the fact that his department’s own reports of 13 July, released by him on 26 July, identified that there have been numerous allegations leading to a call for a public inquiry, that loan sharks were operating in casino toilets, and that there was prize-draw fixing, and skimming from gaming machines; and in the months since those reports were released, why has he not announced an independent public inquiry to fully scrutinise any concerns related to the licensing, establishment, management, and supervision of casinos?

Hon RICK BARKER: The allegations about skimming and game fixing have been investigated thoroughly by the department. It has gone through all the computer records and files and found no evidence to substantiate that. Loan sharking is set down as one of the specific behaviours that is seen as undesirable, and casinos are required to report on that behaviour to the department. Casinos that are in breach of that will have actions taken against them.

Gordon Copeland: Are there existing laws and penalties sufficient to put an end to loan-sharking operations in conjunction with casinos; if not, surely it would be more efficient to impose such a ban with appropriately stiff penalties, rather than having the broad-ranging and expensive inquiry into the entire casino and gambling industry, which is proposed in the principal question?

Hon RICK BARKER: The member asks whether more can be done; I think more can be done. The Department of Internal Affairs has made submissions to the Gambling Commission to require Skycity Casino, for example, and other casinos, to have in their policies on host responsibility, training specifically for staff on the detection of loan sharking, a requirement to specifically exclude anybody they believe to be a loan shark, and to have in place programmes to assist people who are affected by loan sharks. I am looking forward to the Gambling Commission making those requirements on casinos in New Zealand.

Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I specifically asked the Minister whether there were existing laws and penalties to ban this activity, and I do not believe that he, in any way, shape, or form, addressed that part of the question.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I think the Minister addressed the question at length.

Sue Bradford: How can the public have confidence in the Minister and in the department when the Minister and the department say they know what is going on, but loan sharks continue to operate with impunity inside the casinos, flagrantly breaking the law, seizing passports, and causing immeasurable pain to New Zealand individuals and families?

Hon RICK BARKER: I do have confidence in the Department of Internal Affairs. The department has genuine good people to ensure that the law is enforced. If people have evidence that the law is being breached, or Skycity Casino is in breach of its conditions, they should report that, and the department will take swift and effective action against that.

Sue Bradford: Does the Minister believe that his proposed Gambling Amendment Bill, which contains only small policy amendments and many technical amendments, will stop the widely known longstanding illegal behaviour in our casinos and around our pokie parlours?

Hon RICK BARKER: The soon to be debated bill on the gambling legislation will be a vehicle, if it is necessary to amend the current legislation, to do exactly that.

Question Time

PETER BROWN (Whip—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek a point of clarification, actually. When you send a member from the House, it is normal that he or she is invited back, or allowed to come back, after question time, and I have since been informed of that. But I respectfully draw your attention to the fact that earlier on this afternoon leave was sought, and agreed to, that any question that, I think, the National Party in particular wants to put to the Rt Hon Winston Peters about events in the media this morning, can be put. Can he come back during question No. 12?

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. If the extra question that has been given does relate to Mr Peters’ ministerial responsibilities, of course he can come back. It does not necessarily have to relate to him; it could be on anything, as I understand it.

PETER BROWN: The point I am making is that if the question does come, he cannot possibly answer it if he is outside the House. He needs to be here a little bit before.

Madam SPEAKER: I agree, and we will all wait until he comes.

Hawke's Bay District Health Board—Official Information Act Request

6. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: What action, if any, did the Ministry of Health take when it received documents relating to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board’s failed community service RFP in response to an Official Information Act request to the board last year; and did any of those documents include material related to the handling of the whistleblower’s disclosures?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): I am advised that the ministry examined the documents around the process of cancelling the community service request for proposal. It concluded that the process had been handled in accordance with the district health board’s legal advice. The ministry has described the documents to me as being “unremarkable”, and it gave them back to the district health board at the request of the district health board.

Hon Tony Ryall: Can the Minister confirm that those documents in fact included matters relating to the whistleblower’s disclosures, plus recollections of the various parties involved in those disclosures; and what were the conclusions of the ministry in respect of the whistleblower?

Hon PETE HODGSON: No, I cannot conclude that, because to the best of my recollection I never saw them. They were returned to the district health board at the request of the district health board, and were not copied.

Sue Moroney: Has the Minister received any reports regarding a statement made in the House yesterday: “lo and behold the whistleblower was the only person in the entire district health board to lose her job;”; is that statement correct?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, I have received a report. When I heard the statement made by Mr Ryall yesterday, I decided to check it out. Through the ministry, the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board has advised me that there was more than one person made redundant in that staff restructure; throughout the entire district health board not one person lost a job and left the organisation, but 28 of them. Seven of those 28 were in management and administration.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why is the Minister refusing to answer the question of whether the ministry papers included disclosures by the whistleblower, by the acting chief executive, and what conclusions were drawn about those?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I will just repeat gently but firmly to the House that the best of my recollection is that I did not myself see the papers. As far as the ministry is concerned, it became aware of the whistleblower issue not in June or July 2006, which is the period of time this question is about, but in January 2006, when the chair of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board rang the ministry to tell it.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister realise that those papers that were made available to the Ministry of Health included matters relating to the whistleblower and the way in which she was handled; and does the Minister think that this woman was dealt with appropriately—in that she was the one person who blew the whistle on what was going on there and then she was eventually moved on by the very people she had blown the whistle on?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I just draw to the attention of the House that yesterday the person who asked the question of me—the same person who is asking it now—framed the question in order to leave a misleading impression with the House. It was in order to leave a misleading impression. The truth of the matter is that the whistleblower issue is being looked at by the independent review team. That team has spoken to the whistleblower, and has spoken to other people who interviewed the whistleblower. They have examined—

Hon Tony Ryall: How do you know that?

Hon PETE HODGSON: —because they told the director-general, who told me—they have examined the papers around the issue. They will report in a fair, reasoned, and considered manner, in due course, to the director-general, who will report to me, and I will make that information public.

Hon Tony Ryall: How can this be an independent inquiry when the panel chosen by the Director-General of Health will report to the Director-General of Health, and when the same Director-General of Health in looking at all the papers has already said that there was “nothing remarkable” about the events surrounding this?

Hon PETE HODGSON: It would be a good idea for the member not to impugn the integrity of senior health players in this country, at random. It is not a good idea.

Hon Member: He does it all the time.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, exactly—one after the other. The member says: “This corporate lawyer”, “That DHB chair”, “That person who used to be a chief executive at a district health board in an earlier time”, and so on, implying that these people, somehow, are not independent. They have very free and open terms of reference. They are people who have been appointed to various positions by both Governments, in some cases. Therefore, it seems to me that a good thing to do might be to leave them unmolested and see what they come up with.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table an email from David Ritchie, the chairman of the audit committee of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board.

Leave granted.

Iraq—New Zealand Troops

7. JILL PETTIS (Labour) to the Minister of Defence: What new reports has he received on New Zealand committing troops to Iraq?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): I have seen the transcript of a Radio Dunedin interview last Friday with Mr Key. In the interview, Mr Key explained his statement of 11 February 2003, where he had said that he was prepared to commit the SAS and combat troops to Iraq in response to a request from the United States, as follows: “The comments they are referring to were comments of me saying, effectively, are as, I might add, a junior—the 27th out of 27; the most junior backbencher in 2003—to my local community newspaper.” That may have been the excuse, but it does not explain why he told Campbell Live, on 28 May 2007—and continues to say—that it had never been his personal view to support sending troops to Iraq. That denial is obviously untrue and misleading, and he should simply come clean and admit that.

Jill Pettis: Can the Minister advise the House of what else the report states?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The report quotes Mr Key as now claiming that even though he supported the war in Iraq, he would not have sent troops there. Again, that statement, last Friday, contradicts his earlier statements, and that statement must be misleading and must be untrue. But he also said in the Rodney Times on 11 February 2003: “New Zealand should be prepared to fight for the values it believes in.” He is now saying that he believes in the values behind the war but that he would not fight for them. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I will ask the Minister to repeat his answer in silence. Will the Minister please now complete his answer as succinctly as possible, in silence so that we can all hear it.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Mr Key, having said that New Zealand should be prepared to fight for the values that it believes in, is now saying that he believes in the values behind the war but that he would not fight for them. That position would be regarded by friends and allies of New Zealand as a rather gutless one, as opposed to not being there for reasons of not supporting the war.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table two relevant documents. The first is a media release this afternoon from Air New Zealand, explaining that the mainly Government-owned Air New Zealand sent two charter flights of Australian troops to Kuwait.

Leave granted.

Keith Locke: I also seek leave to table a release, also of this afternoon, from Investigate magazine, saying that the Government was consulted on the sending of Australian—

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

Question No. 8 to Minister

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): My question is to the Minister—[Interruption] My question is to the Minister for Building and Construction—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Show some guts. [Interruption]

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Get a life, Trevor!

Madam SPEAKER: Members, you will both be leaving the Chamber, with this chipping going on. Please be quiet. Would the member please continue with his question.

Gerry Brownlee: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: I have ruled on this matter. There is too much disorder with these comments from all sides, which then create disorder. We will hear the question in silence.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is always a starting point to disorder, and the comments made by Trevor Mallard are just totally unacceptable. They are extremely out of order. We cannot expect that someone standing up to ask a question, should have to listen to that sort of comment and make no comment in return. It is unreasonable. Mr Mallard should be asked to apologise.

Madam SPEAKER: I agree with the member. It has been going on all afternoon, so it now finishes. Would the member please ask his question.

Housing—Affordability

8. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What, if anything, is the Department of Building and Housing doing to improve housing affordability?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction): The Department of Building and Housing is working in partnership with a number of agencies in developing a range of housing affordability proposals, including the investigation of shared equity. This is part of the Government’s wider work programme on housing affordability. Specifically, the department has introduced changes to the building code on energy efficiency. It will save families in new homes between $760 and $1,800 per year on their energy bills. The department is progressing a suite of reforms to transform the building sector. The reforms include occupational licensing for building practitioners, the building code review, and the accreditation of building consent authorities.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Noting the example of sustainability that the Minister has given, why under his policy has Mr Leigh Marshall, an Auckland architect who wants to install a standard $5,000 solar water-heating system in his home, been billed $3,800 for consent costs; and does this not confirm that building compliance costs are completely out of control?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Firstly, the building consent costs the member refers to are determined by local authorities, but recently I announced new compliance document guidance information that means that installing solar water technology will be made easier. In the past building consent authorities—that is, local councils—had to examine each project on its merits, leading to delays and unnecessary costs. We have published the new compliance document on solar heating installations. This, in turn, will lower the costs of installing the technology by as much as 10 percent, or $500, and will remove an important barrier to the adoption of the technology.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How has the new Building Act and the new department helped home affordability when according to the Registered Master Builders Federation in today’s Dominion Post, it has increased compliance costs, levies, and fees by a whopping 30 percent, or $42,000 per house?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: The new rate of building levy, from February 2005, is $1.97 per $1,000 of building work. Formerly, it was 67c per $1,000 of building work. That means that a levy on a $250,000 build is under $500, and on a $1 million build it is under $2,000. I say to the member that it is a requirement, and I want to quote that member’s comments in the New Zealand Herald of 25 September 2006: “We need to develop a programme for systematically reviewing all building standards to ensure they represent best practice. We then need to make these standards far more accessible to the public and building sector.” We say the sensible way to fund this exercise is the building levy charged on all building consents.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is it any wonder that building costs have gone through the roof, when the Wellington City Council stated in Monday’s Dominion Post: “A typical house plan four 4 years ago was three A3 size plans and 30 supporting pages. Developers are now required to file 12 A3 pages and up to 300 pages of supporting documentation.”, and with that sort of paper war is it any wonder that homeownership rates are falling through the floor?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: One of the reasons why we require auditing and accrediting of local authorities is that, firstly, we have a buoyant economy, which means more bills; secondly, that means an extraordinary number of consent applications; and, thirdly, it means that we need to ensure that local authorities have the staff—as in the Palmerston North City Council, which almost doubled its staff from 12 to 20—to meet that demand, to ensure that their processes are efficient, and to ensure that they have resources and their inspectors are doing their jobs properly. That is simple organisational reform, rather than simply saying we should do something about it, but not ensuring councils are up to speed and are actually meeting those demands. That comes at a cost, and councils are charging that cost.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why should the public have any confidence that this Government can improve home affordability, when the latest census data shows it has dropped by 1 percent in every year that Labour has been in Government and a report today predicts that under current Government policy homeownership will tumble over the next 10 years to the lowest level in the OECD?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I am very proud of what the Government has done to assist home affordability, unlike that party previously in Government. The facts are these: income-related rents for State houses, an increased accommodation supplement, KiwiSaver, the Welcome Home Loan scheme, the shared equity scheme to be examined, and the Home Ownership Education Programme. They are facts and programmes that are now in place. The member should also recall that we are in a buoyant economy and that is why we have a large number of consents. People are embarking on house builds and house purchases because they have money in their pockets.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table an email from architect Mr Marshall stating he has still not received his consent.

Leave granted.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: To illustrate the burgeoning paper war, I seek the leave of the House to table a building consent for a standard house, prior to the Minister’s Building Act.

Leave granted.

General Practitioners—Fees

9. MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Has he received any reports on the average annual cost of visiting a general practitioner?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes, I have, and the costs have all gone down: from $940 a year for an average family to $440 a year. In other words, they have halved. The question that is unanswered, however, is whether, under National, they would then double.

Maryan Street: Can New Zealanders be confident that they will continue to access affordable and quality primary health care under Labour?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, they certainly can. I can assure the House that under a Labour-led Government from 2008, access to a general practitioner or to a prescription will remain at the affordable levels that we have now achieved. I repeat that the unanswered question is whether, under National, the costs of that would then double.

Crime—Prevention and Reduction Initiatives

10. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement to the House earlier this year that since 2005 “A number of significant and long-term crime prevention and reduction initiatives have been put in place”?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Yes.

Chester Borrows: Can he confirm that the crime reduction Ministers group, which, in his words, established priorities for Government action to reduce crime, last met on 23 June 2003—in the midst of youth violence up 44 percent, youth sex offending up 23 percent, and all robberies up 49 percent?

Hon MARK BURTON: I can confirm that the work that was done by that group was then implemented and is continuing to be so. I give the member an example—the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design programme, in which 27 councils have received funding for projects, including one in Wanganui. I am surprised the member is not familiar with it. The Vehicle Crime Reduction Programme in Rotorua is a good example. The member for Rotorua has told me herself about the success—a 22.4 percent reduction as a result of that programme. The community and youth at risk programme has 40 projects funded. The sexual violence task force has a raft of initiatives under effective interventions. I do not think Madam Speaker will allow me to go on through the rest of my list.

Chester Borrows: Can the Minister confirm that Treasury has slammed the crime reduction strategy as having “no particular focus on stopping intergenerational crime or consideration of the role of early interventions in areas such as education, health, income support, and housing”; and what good is a crime reduction strategy that does not try to reduce crime?

Hon MARK BURTON: I can confirm to the contrary that the various aspects of the crime reduction strategy are, in fact, working. As the example I gave him just a moment ago, in Rotorua there has been a 22.4 percent reduction in offences around vehicle crime in that city as a result of that particular intervention. The sexual violence task force is important work. The community and youth at risk programme has 40 projects. We have seen massive reductions as a result of the Crossroads initiative in Whakatāne—just one of those 40. There are many, many examples, and it is sad that that member is not prepared to back them and acknowledge the good work being done in our communities.

Chester Borrows: Can he confirm that one of the seven priorities under the crime reduction strategy is organised crime, and that until the shooting of Jhia Te Tua, the last paper he received relating to gangs was entitled A Stocktake on What is Known About Organised Crime, dated March 2005, before the last election?

Hon MARK BURTON: I cannot confirm that I received that paper; I was not the Minister before the last election. However, I can confirm that this Government has done extensive work within the criminal justice system around the whole area of organised crime. It is certainly the initiatives that have been taken by this Government, despite the failed efforts of the previous National Government, that have made a positive difference, but the new initiatives will make many, many more.

Chester Borrows: Can the Minister confirm the Prime Minister’s recent statement that the Law Commission is responsible for seven bills that have recently been before the House, plus another seven bills in the pipeline; if so, can the Minister tell the House what he actually does all day?

Hon MARK BURTON: The member should put questions on the Law Commission’s work programme to the very busy Minister responsible for the Law Commission, who, of course, is also me. So one of the things—

Simon Power: Then answer it.

Hon MARK BURTON: Well, the member Chester Borrows put the question to me as Minister of Justice, but I will tell the member—

Madam SPEAKER: It is impossible to hear. I have had interventions to make sure that order is maintained in the House. I ask members on the National side of the House also to please do so.

Hon MARK BURTON: Despite the member being confused as to whom he should address his question, I can say that it is sort of asked and answered. If he is so impressed with the workload of the Law Commission, he should understand that as the responsible Minister I am directly involved in the creation of that work programme and the management of it.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is appalling if you allow that to stand as an answer. It addressed the question, but to simply try to confuse ministries and defuse an answer that way is trifling with the House.

Madam SPEAKER: I should have enforced the Standing Orders and said the question was out of order, because it was not addressed to the Minister in his capacity under that ministerial responsibility, and that is what is required. However, I thought the House might wish the question to be addressed, and the Minister was pleased to do so.

Chester Borrows: I seek leave to table the Minister’s answer to a written question that shows that the crime reduction—

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

Chester Borrows: I seek leave to table the Minister’s answer to a written question that shows the last paper he received—

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

Chester Borrows: I seek leave to table the Minister’s answer to a written question that shows youth offending—

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

Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, they don’t want to have private—

Madam SPEAKER: If that member wishes to stay in the House he will not interject during points of order.

Chester Borrows: I seek leave to table three documents: the recommendation of the 2004 Safer Communities Action Plan to Reduce Community Violence and Sexual Violence to establish inter-agency—

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

Chester Borrows: I seek leave to table a paper to the Minister of Justice stating they had failed to get funding for the original inter-agency group—

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

Chester Borrows: I seek leave to table the announcement 3 years later of the establishment of an inter-agency group on sexual violence.

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

Chester Borrows: I seek leave to table two documents: the recommendation for the 2004 Safer Communities Action Plan—

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

Chester Borrows: I seek leave to table the Minister’s announcement 3 years later explaining—

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

Chester Borrows: I seek leave to table a quote from the Minister for Women’s Affairs, Lianne Dalziel last year, stating that the Government has taken its eye off the ball—

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

Chester Borrows: I seek leave to table the Treasury report that slams the crime reduction strategy as having no—

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

Chester Borrows: I seek leave to table the Ministry of Justice’s advice to the Minister’s office that states: “There is no Government funding”—

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

Chester Borrows: I seek leave to table the Prime Minister’s recent statement that the Law Commission—

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

Ron Mark: Could the measure of the Minister’s success in long-term crime reduction initiatives be well portrayed by the fact that serious youth offending—that is offending by 14 to 16-year-olds—is up 39 percent, almost 40 percent, and that latest statistics show that of all apprehensions nationwide, 43 percent of them are of young people aged 10 years to 20 years of age; is that the measure of success in his crime reduction initiatives?

Hon MARK BURTON: I think the proper measure of success is the outcome of the many initiatives being put in place or that have been put in place already. Those will each in turn be properly evaluated. That will be the proper measure of success.

Immigration Act—Custody

11. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: How many people who have been held for more than 3 months are currently in custody under any provision of the Immigration Act 1987, broken down by country of birth?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): I am advised that there are currently four persons who have been in custody under the Immigration Act for more than 3 months. I am advised that Immigration New Zealand does not collect statistics on a person’s country of birth, but does collect them on nationality.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister stand by his statement in his answer to written question No. 8500: “Where the duration of custody is longer than three months, this is due to the non-co-operation of the individual concerned in obtaining the required documentation.”; if so, why?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am advised that the answers to parliamentary written questions that were given to the member certainly were correct at the time they were given.

David Benson-Pope: Can the Minister comment on the likely consequences of upholding ad hoc humanitarian appeals to the Minister?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The likely consequence would be nothing less than a dismantling of the entire immigration system. New Zealand has a world-leading refugee appeal system, which is strengthened in the new bill that I introduced last week. New Zealanders understand that there is no point in having a clear, independent legislative process if we then act to undermine it. Of course, one can have the utmost sympathy for individuals, but these cases are extremely complicated, and they are best decided not in the court of public opinion but by the appropriate appellate body, which is in possession of all of the facts.

Keith Locke: Why is the Government trying to deport some of the people referred to, when the Government admits that those people will be persecuted back home—namely, Iranian converts from Islam to Christianity—and does the Minister agree that it was totally inhumane for one of these men, Ali Panah, to be handcuffed in Auckland City Hospital while gravely weakened after 33 days of a hunger strike?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: There are a number of questions in that question; I shall answer a couple of them. Firstly, in respect of handcuffs, I am advised that Immigration Service officers do not carry handcuffs. Secondly, in respect of the reason why people can be held in custody, I am advised that there are two reasons why people can be held in custody for longer than 3 months, pending removal. The first is failure to cooperate with a lawful removal process, and the second is making a refugee claim after being served with a removal order under section 66 of the Immigration Act 1987.

Madam SPEAKER: Before we have another supplementary question, I remind those members who have shifted from the back row to the front row that they will not use that position to interject; otherwise, they will be leaving the Chamber.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister confirm—did I hear him correctly—that only four people have been held in custody here for over 3 months; if so, will he advise the House of what happened to the others who were in custody, because his answer to written question No. 8500 referred to a good deal more than four; can I take it that those people have been deported, and, if not, will the Minister advise what has happened to them?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I can confirm that the number that the member was given in an answer to a written question was accurate at the time it was given to him. I do not have a case by case breakdown of the changes, but I am advised that a number of those people have indeed been deported, some have been removed, and some have had a change in their status as a result of judicial action.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a speech made by the New Zealand Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Rosemary Banks.

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

Biosecurity New Zealand—Custody

12. SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) to the Minister for Biosecurity: Does the Minister have confidence in Biosecurity New Zealand?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity): Yes, and at a much higher level than any confidence I or this House could ever have in the spokesperson on biosecurity from the National Party.

Madam SPEAKER: I do not think that last comment was necessary.

Shane Ardern: Does the Minister support the proposal to allow chilled pork meat into New Zealand, or will he listen to international expert Professor Roger Morris, who has strongly opposed that proposal?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: For porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome to infect our local commercial pork industry, an almost impossible chain of events would have to occur. It is so unlikely that the risk to New Zealand pork producers is considered to be negligible by reputable national and international scientists.

Lesley Soper: Why does the Minister not intervene in this matter?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Under the Biosecurity Act, passed by a National Government in 1993, it is quite properly inappropriate for me to influence Import Health Standards. Decisions on such standards are properly determined by the director-general of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, following expert scientific evaluation and a public consultation process. Political interference in the objective decision-making process on Import Health Standards is totally inappropriate and is completely contrary to our broader trading interests. If the member is suggesting that there should be political interference in our biosecurity apparatus, then New Zealand’s agricultural and horticultural exporters have everything to fear from a National Government, if that is what National is proposing.

Shane Ardern: At the conclusion of my questions, I will seek leave to table section 63 of the Biosecurity Act, which was amended in 1998—

Madam SPEAKER: The member can do that at the time. Would the member please ask his supplementary question.

Shane Ardern: I will give the Minister a chance to check it out. Why would the Minister play Russian roulette, with the potential of importing porcine reproductive respiratory disease, when Professor Morris, who is recognised internationally as an expert in this field and is currently seconded to the UK to help it with its foot-and-mouth outbreak, has stated that this is a very high-risk proposal with a high probability of importing this disease, which to the pork industry is the equivalent of foot-and-mouth disease?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: With respect to Professor Morris, I say that he has a long and close association with the pork industry. There is nothing wrong with that, but the import risk analysis conducted on this issue was peer reviewed by seven independent New Zealand and international experts. I understand that Scott Dee, professor of veterinary medicine at the University of Minnesota, and Scott Hurd, the director of the World Health Organization’s Collaborating Center for Risk Assessment and Hazard Identification in Foods of Animal Origin, either agreed with the risk analysis or indicated that we had overestimated the risk. There are expert views, of course, on all sides, and Biosecurity New Zealand has had to make a rational decision, after balancing all of the views and risks. I support it in doing so without political interference.

Lesley Soper: Why is the science-based approach to biosecurity important to New Zealand?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: It is strongly in the interests of New Zealand’s primary producers that we support a risk-based approach to trade, based on sound science. I suspect that National MPs such as Lockwood Smith, David Carter, and Tim Groser support a science-based approach to trade, but every few months they let Mr Ardern have question No. 12 in order to run some kind of alarmist shock, horror story—as he did when he drove up the steps of Parliament on a Massey Ferguson tractor.

Shane Ardern: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I will allow the Minister a chance to correct his last statement, because I think he may have misled the House. It was actually a Ferguson tractor, not a Massey Ferguson tractor.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please ask his question.

Shane Ardern: If the Minister thinks the risk is low, then is he prepared to put his money where his mouth is and cover any costs that may be incurred by the industry if this virus were to be accidentally imported, and if that is not the case, why is it reported that the Minister or his officials have stated to the industry that it will be the industry’s problem or issue to police the feeding of raw pork meat to pigs?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Firstly, this is not a decision of the Minister’s, and whatever the Minister’s opinion may or may not be of it, we have a science-based, evidence-based process for biosecurity in this country. I would like to hear from the leadership on the front bench of the National Party as to whether those members propose to change that at the whim of Mr Ardern from the backbenches. There is no such thing as no biosecurity risk; that is quite simply unachievable. The closest we could come to that is to close our borders entirely, but even then biosecurity risks would come by the oceans or the wind. If Mr Ardern has some way of stopping those two elements, I would like to hear from him.

Shane Ardern: I seek leave of the House to table section 63 of the Biosecurity Act.

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

Air New Zealand—Australian Troops

13. Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Defence: Can the Minister confirm that following consultation with the Government, Air New Zealand, which is 80 percent owned by the Government, has recently been flying Australian combat troops who are on deployment to Iraq, and how does that fit with Government policy to have nothing to do with combat troops in Iraq, or is this some kind of covert foreign policy of plausible denial?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a question for which the Minister of Defence has no responsibility; it is wrongly addressed.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister of Defence has already issued a press statement—several hours ago, actually—covering this issue in some detail. When we were trying to work out who to ask, there was no evidence that the Minister of Foreign Affairs knew anything about it or knew what was going on, and it is unlikely he would have remembered if he had been told. But the Minister of Defence had put out a press statement, and we had no choice but to direct the question to the Minister who knew what was happening.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With respect, that is not a point of order. If the member wants to bandy around insults, well anybody can do that, but Madam Speaker you should have stopped him in his tracks when he first started,

Madam SPEAKER: If the Minister of Defence has no responsibility he may transfer the question or he may address it.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): I was advised shortly before coming to the House that an article is to be produced tomorrow that suggests Air New Zealand undertook a commercial contract to transfer troops from Australia to Kuwait. I understand that if the Australian troops were going to Kuwait, then almost inevitably they would have been headed for Iraq. It is not this Government’s position to support such an action by Air New Zealand and in fact Air New Zealand’s action, I think, is contrary to the wishes and to the views of this Government and maybe this House. However, the member will be aware that under the Companies Act it is not within the power of the Minister of Finance to direct Air New Zealand on commercial matters. However, it is within the power of this Government to make it absolutely clear to Air New Zealand that its actions as a flag carrier of New Zealand are inappropriate, and I intend to do that this afternoon.

Madam SPEAKER: There are no supplementary questions. We have come to the end of the time for questions for oral answer. [Interruption] It is very difficult to hear.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I seek leave to ask the Minister a supplementary question.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought, is there any objection? Yes, there is.

ENDS

© Scoop Media