Questions and Answers - Thursday, 25 October 2007

Questions to Ministers

Fiscal Policy—Reserve Bank Assessment

1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank’s assessment that “fiscal policy is contributing to inflationary pressure”; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): No, I do not. I agree that ongoing inflationary pressures need to be kept in mind—by those who have such a thing—when considering fiscal policy. But fiscal policy currently remains very strong, and is stronger than was forecast at Budget time.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister agree with the Westpac bank commentary that says: “The most extraordinary paragraph was devoted to fiscal policy. The Minister of Finance recently said it would be difficult to argue the Government is contributing to inflationary pressure. The Reserve Bank’s retort could not have been blunter. Despite ongoing surpluses, fiscal policy is contributing to inflationary pressure.”; and should we believe the Minister of Finance or the Reserve Bank?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is clear that if we, at this point, were collecting $4 billion a year less than we are, as the National Party proposed, fiscal policy would be much weaker and inflationary pressures would be much stronger. The member yesterday was calling for a loosening of fiscal policy; today he is back to calling for a tightening of fiscal policy.

H V Ross Robertson: Has the Minister received any reports on the merits of this Government’s prudent fiscal policy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes. I have seen reports from bank economists that highlight the importance of our strong fiscal position in counterbalancing the large current account deficit, which is a symptom of our poor savings record. I have also seen a multitude of conflicting reports calling for larger surpluses and for smaller surpluses. Mr English, no doubt, today will continue that track record of inconsistency.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that people who face mortgage rate increases of up to 2 percent may, in fact, believe the Reserve Bank, which says that the Government’s fiscal policy is inflationary and is therefore tending to push interest rates higher for longer than would otherwise be the case; and, given that the Reserve Bank makes decisions about interest rates, why should those New Zealanders believe him rather than the Reserve Bank?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It seems likely that at the moment we are actually still running a cash surplus. I do not know of any country in the world where a Government that runs a cash surplus is regarded as running an expansionary fiscal policy. I remind that member that not very long ago he was using the increase in mortgage rates as a reason why we had to have large tax cuts immediately, which would add to fiscal stimulus within the economy.

Hon Bill English: Is it now the Minister’s position that New Zealanders who face big increases in their interest rates face those increases because the Reserve Bank is wrong, that in fact there is no inflationary pressure from the Government’s fiscal policy, and that therefore the increases in interest rates they face are unnecessary?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Reserve Bank has been tightening monetary policy for the last 3 years or more. During that entire period the Government has run surpluses that have been described as obscene by the member opposite—indeed, the senior Opposition whip nods her head; I think that is what was happening at that point. We are one of the few countries in the world to be running a cash surplus after all investment, after investing in the Superannuation Fund, and after paying for all capital.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister believe that New Zealanders who face big increases in interest rates on mortgages, overdrafts, and credit cards should be pretty upset if they find out today that the Reserve Bank has pushed interest rates up, when there is no problem with Government spending simply because Dr Cullen says there is no problem?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member may not have noticed this, but domestic inflation has been running at about 4 percent per annum or so for the last 3 years, while the Government has run very large surpluses. All prices have been rising. Commodity prices have been rising in general, including dairy prices, which affect the New Zealand consumer as well as our overseas earnings. Those rises, as the Reserve Bank itself says, are the major factors leading to inflationary pressures within the economy.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister tell us, in his capacity as Minister of Finance, whether the Reserve Bank was right or wrong when it said today: “Despite ongoing surpluses … fiscal policy is contributing to inflationary pressure.”; is Alan Bollard right or wrong?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think what the Reserve Bank is referring to is that the current forecast has fiscal policy looser than it was last year—what is called a positive fiscal impulse. On those grounds I think the member will find that the updated forecast in December will show that fiscal impulse is significantly weaker than was forecast at the time of the Budget, because the Government is running stronger surpluses. As soon as that figure is out in the public arena, the member opposite will be calling for large tax cuts, thereby leading to a weakening of fiscal policy and further inflationary pressures. He cannot have it both ways; he should leave that to some of his colleagues.

H V Ross Robertson: Has the Minister received any recent reports on the factors that ought to be taken into account when considering the nature and timing of tax cuts?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen some very strange reports that seem to suggest that this Government’s four tests for tax cuts mean that tax cuts will not go ahead. One of those tests was that tax cuts should not add unduly to inflationary pressures. It is clear that Mr English believes that tax cuts should proceed, of whatever size he cares to think up and whatever the inflationary pressures may be as a consequence, but, of course, that a Labour Government should nevertheless run a tighter fiscal policy.

Hon Bill English: What does the Minister think of his legacy now after 8 years of mismanaging economic growth, whereby New Zealand is in the top half of the OECD, has the second-highest interests rates, and now has the 13th-highest tax burden?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I cannot think of another finance Minister in New Zealand who, after 8 years, could say that he or she had seen 28 percent growth, had seen unemployment nearly halved, had seen the highest participation rate in the labour market in New Zealand’s history, had seen a massive reduction in child poverty, had seen reduced costs of going to the doctor, and had seen significant reductions in the cost of attaining a tertiary education—and the Opposition can still only whinge pathetically.

Prisons—Complaints and Systemic Issues

2. NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements, if any, have been made to enhance the independent oversight of complaints and systemic issues in prisons?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Today we released proposals that would give the Office of the Ombudsmen new responsibilities for conducting investigations of all deaths in custody and designated serious incidents, and for undertaking more reviews of systemic issues identified during visits of prisons as a result of incidents or complaints. The proposal has resulted from a package of work with the Green Party to examine victims’ rights and to ensure effective independent oversight of our prisons. I acknowledge the contribution of the Green Party and, in particular, justice spokesperson, Nandor Tanczos, for his input into these proposals.

Nandor Tanczos: Does the Minister agree that if the New Zealand public is to have confidence in the ability of a prison inspectorate to fearlessly and independently hold the Department of Corrections to account when investigating complaints, then the most effective way of doing that is through having an Ombudsman for prisons?

Hon MARK BURTON: Yes, I think this is a matter we have looked at very carefully and we have looked at the alternatives. I believe that the New Zealand Ombudsmen enjoy a uniquely high level of public confidence and trust, and that this is the right place to locate this important function.

Jill Pettis: How do these new responsibilities fit with the responsibilities of the Ombudsmen under the Crimes of Torture Amendment Act 2006?

Hon MARK BURTON: The role fits with the broader role of the Ombudsmen of examining and reporting on prison conditions and prisoner treatment as a national preventive mechanism under the Crimes of Torture Amendment Act. It is a good enhancement and is complementary to that function.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that the Ombudsmen already deal with a high number of prisoner complaints—hardly qualifying as the new body that Labour promised the Greens in 2005—and how does he reconcile this initiative with the views of Damien O’Connor, expressed at a select committee last year, when he said: “I have to say that I personally don’t give it the highest priority. I think there are in place adequate avenues for prisoners who make complaints.”?

Hon MARK BURTON: I think it is evidence of the fact that we continue to think, work, and collaborate. The work that the Ombudsmen undertake currently is one of the reasons that when this was looked at very carefully by the Government and the Greens it was deemed a good fit.

Simon Power: It’s not new.

Hon MARK BURTON: Of course, if the member bothered to look at the detail he would see that the second-tier function, where much of the serious investigation work takes place, currently resides with the inspectorate. Under the authority of the chief executive of the Department of Corrections it will now reside under the direct authority of the Ombudsmen. This is a fundamental shift of responsibility for the most important investigative work.

Nandor Tanczos: Can the Minister confirm that a key function of the prison Ombudsman will be to undertake own-motion investigations into systemic issues in the corrections system, that the Ombudsman will be funded to do so, and that that is an important element to pre-empt problems such as those that led to the tragic killing of Liam Ashley?

Hon MARK BURTON: Again, yes, the enhancement of the resourcing and the capability of the office will, I think, lead to a greater number of own-motion investigations. I think they are an invaluable part of the toolkit of the Office of the Ombudsmen in its expanded functions.

Simon Power: It happens now.

Hon MARK BURTON: For the benefit of the member opposite, I repeat that he should look at the fundamental transfer of the second-tier responsibilities that currently sit in law under the authority of the chief executive of the Department of Corrections. That function will transfer—there will be legislative change—and it will reside with the Ombudsmen directly.

Capital and Coast District Health Board—Wellington Hospital

3. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Does he have any concerns about the ongoing performance of Wellington Hospital and the Capital and Coast District Health Board; if so, what are they?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes, I do have some concerns. It is well known that this district health board is going through some difficulties, not the least of which is the departure of a paediatric oncologist as reported this morning.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why has the Government neglected report after report, warning about the continued viability of child cancer services in Wellington—reports that go back to the very first month that Labour was in office 8 years ago?

Hon PETE HODGSON: They go back a lot longer than that. I think there was a report in the term of the National Government that suggested two tertiary paediatric oncology services. This country has three, and the problem we are facing in Wellington is that the clinical number—the number of children with cancer—is mercifully low, about 20 a year, about 12 of whom travel from outside Wellington to Wellington now, so clinicians are interested in whether a shared service between Wellington and Christchurch can be put together. The district health board has signalled again its determination to do so.

Hon Marian Hobbs: When is the next meeting of the paediatric oncology steering group, which the Minister may be referring to, and what are the issues it is seeking to address?

Hon PETE HODGSON: By coincidence it is meeting today and it has two broad issues on its agenda. The first is how to ensure that the provision of secondary paediatric oncology is maintained, and I suspect that the group will come to the view that that is not a difficult issue—that is the status quo; the question is how to maintain the status quo. The more difficult issue is how we rebuild up to the tertiary service that existed until a few months ago. That tertiary service, it is hoped, will be in place by January. Indeed, the original reviewer who said we can get a good tertiary service in place alongside Canterbury said that it should be done by January, if at all possible.

Barbara Stewart: Does he consider that the resignation of the sole remaining child cancer specialist at Wellington Hospital is indicative of medical workforce shortages right throughout New Zealand; and what is his ministry doing to rectify this situation?

Hon PETE HODGSON: There are, from memory, about six paediatric oncologists in New Zealand. Given that there are about 20 patients going to Wellington each year, one would be hard pressed to say that we would need more paediatric oncologists. What we need, however, are paediatric oncologists who are able to work with one another to keep one another clinically safe. I think that is the underlying issue.

Gordon Copeland: Is the Minister aware that a growing shortage of general practitioners in the Hutt Valley means that people are now phoning around half a dozen or more and are still unable to get an appointment, and that some retiring general practitioners have closed down because there were no buyers for their practices; if the Minister is aware of that, can he tell us what plans Capital and Coast District Health Board or the ministry have to improve this most unsatisfactory situation?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Capital and Coast District Health Board does not cover the Hutt Valley.

Judy Turner: Does the Minister consider that this district health board is experiencing greater staff retention and recruitment problems than other district health boards; if so, how does he account for this difficulty?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Certainly Capital and Coast District Health Board has had its fair share of difficulties, not only with paediatric oncology but with, for example, anaesthetists. On the other hand, it is well staffed in many other areas and leads the country in the provision of some of its services.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Government realise the domino effect that this will have on the viability of other paediatric services of Wellington, and what confidence can anyone have that the people who have the track record of neglecting this issue over the last 8 years, despite report after report, can actually fix the crisis that the families of Wellington are facing with paediatric cancer services?

Hon PETE HODGSON: As a citizen of Dunedin I well remember when paediatric oncology was shifted from Dunedin to Christchurch, and it was not a happy time. [Interruption] I am just replying to the member’s question. It did not, however, affect other paediatric services, which are in very good shape in Dunedin. I just remind the member that Capital and Coast District Health Board, even today, put out a statement, which I will quote from: “The board remains determined to pursue a return to offering a full tertiary paediatric oncology service.”

Hon Tony Ryall: Been saying that for 8 years.

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member keeps chipping that this has been going on for 8 years. I just say to the member that except for the past few months, there have been paediatric oncology services at the tertiary level at Capital and Coast District Health Board.

Katrina Shanks: What advice will the Minister give to Wellington parents when their children are diagnosed with cancer and they are forced to get treatment hundreds of kilometres away, for several months at a time, and does he think that this is an acceptable situation for the capital city of New Zealand?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I just repeat afresh, if I may, that we have three paediatric oncology tertiary services in this country, and right now the Wellington one is offering only secondary services. The intention of the district health board is to return to where it has been in the provision of tertiary services, almost certainly in partnership with the Canterbury service, because the number of children with cancer is sufficiently small, thank goodness, that there is a need for the services to be joined up in order to maintain clinical safety. That is the advice I am getting, time and again, and I am sure the steering group that is meeting today will reaffirm that.

Katrina Shanks: What assurance can the Minister give to the people of the Wellington region that this Government is actually going to do something about this crisis, when they have been ignored and neglected in report after report from the very first month the Government has been in office?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member refers to report after report about, somehow, the absence of paediatric oncology at the tertiary level at Capital and Coast District Health Board. That service has been in place for all of the last 8 years, except for the past few months. That is the situation. The member, Mr Ryall, keeps shaking his head, and the other member, Ms Shanks, keeps shaking her head. They need to ring Capital and Coast District Health Board and ask whether it had a paediatric oncology service at the tertiary level, and the answer will be yes; and whether it is intent on returning to a paediatric oncology service at the tertiary level, and the answer will be yes.

Hon Tony Ryall: What confidence can he offer the parents of the Wellington region, when he talks about relying on the very people who for 8 years have ignored repeated warnings about the viability of child cancer services in the Wellington region; for 8 years they have had reports and concerns, and nothing has happened, and this Minister is happy just to rely on their assurance yet again?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Let me put it a little more directly. There are two ways to ensure viability of a tertiary-level service where one needs a throughput of patients to keep a paediatric oncologist in practice: one is more cancer, and the other is to join up with a second service, for example in Christchurch. It is the second of those two options that is under active exploration.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table two documents regarding the warnings in respect of services at child cancer services in Wellington—

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

Incomes—Movements

4. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Has he received any reports on movements in real incomes?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Yes, a number. The real increase in average gross household income between 2000 and 2007 was 25.4 percent, or 3.3 percent per annum. The increase in real net income for someone on the average income was around $4,400, or 14 percent, over the same period. This was a result of the longest period of sustained economic growth in over a generation, combined with the lowest unemployment on record and more people working than ever before.

Charles Chauvel: Has the Minister received any alternative reports purporting to show changes in real income between 2000 and 2007?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes. I have seen a report that purports to set out the impact of inflation on taxation on one “Joanna Average”, and claims there was practically no real net increase. But this report is fundamentally flawed, as it confuses net and gross incomes and applies the consumer price index adjuster to the wrong one. Due to this error, the actual real net increase is more than three times higher than that suggested in the report. This is yet another example of what is coming to be called economic “Billiteracy”.

Sue Bradford: Is the Government considering doing anything at all to improve the incomes of the hundreds of thousands of individuals and families who are dependent on benefits, given that the 1991 benefit cuts were never restored and we now have an $8.7 billion Budget surplus?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Indeed, large parts of the Working for Families package apply to those on benefits with dependent children, including, of course, the very important $10-per-week per child increase that came into force on 1 April this year. That has probably done a very large amount to reduce the number of children living in poverty.

Charles Chauvel: Has the Minister received any reports on alternative ways of accounting for unpaid debts in the Government accounts?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes. I have seen a report suggesting that New Zealand should abandon accepted accounting procedures and treat unpaid debt that is not likely to be paid as if it were money we could spend on tax cuts. That is yet another example of economic “Billiteracy”.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that what he has just said is a load of rubbish—that I did not make those comments—and that, in fact, I was pointing out something he did not point out to the public, which is that in this last financial year the Government wrote off $1.9 billion of debt in uncollected taxes and fines, when the usual amount is about $90 million, and that meant that the surplus came down from over $10 billion to $8.7 billion?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If that was all that the member had done, he would have just been pointing out standard accounting principles; he then went on to argue that it meant the Government could afford bigger tax cuts, because of the $1.9 billion write-off. That was the economic “Billiteracy”.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that anyone with any background in Treasury, particularly as a civil servant, would know that; and how would it be possible for someone to get the calculations so dramatically wrong yet be elevated so high in this Parliament?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The last point is easy: one has only to look at the alternatives. He was the best they had.

Electoral Finance Bill—Regulated Election Periods

5. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: Has he been advised of any countries which have a regulated election period longer than the maximum period possible under the provisions of the Electoral Finance Bill; if so, what are those countries?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): In Canada there is a spending cap for political parties, but there is a non-specified regulated period. In other words, the entire electoral cycle is regulated. Every dollar has to be accounted for within the spending limits. Arguably, this approach is even more stringent than the one we have referred to more regularly in the House for the United Kingdom, which has a regulated period of 365 days.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that the United Kingdom, from which he regularly quotes, has in fact five different regulated election periods: for the Scottish Parliament it is 4 months, for the Welsh Assembly it is 4 months, for the Northern Ireland Assembly it is 4 months, for the UK seats in the European Parliament it is 4 months, and that it is only the Westminster Parliament that has an election period of 12 months; why did the Minister choose by far the longest of the periods in the United Kingdom?

Hon MARK BURTON: It may be a surprise to the member, but we are referred to as a Westminster Parliament.

Hon Bill English: When will the Minister tell the public that although he is imposing an 11-month period—in which all political opinion and spending will be tightly regulated—on all New Zealand citizens, he has in fact removed the 3-month regulated period that traditionally applied to members of Parliament, with the effect being that members of Parliament will be able to spend public money pretty much as they like, because it will not count as election expenses, but private citizens will be heavily restricted in what they can spend?

Hon MARK BURTON: As usual, the member misrepresents the facts. The fact is that members of Parliament have always been able to spend appropriately on parliamentary activity in their capacity as a member of Parliament, within their relatively modest budgets, for each of the 365 days of each of the 3 years of the electoral cycle. However, in their capacity as candidates, they are treated as any other parliamentary candidate.

Hon Bill English: Has the Minister seen submissions by independent bodies like the Human Rights Commission and the Law Society, who have made the point that the 11-month regulated period—which prevents private citizens from having any political opinion unless it meets the Government’s criteria—heavily weights the law in favour of the incumbent Government, which can spend without restriction on pushing its point of view; and why should the public believe the Labour Party, which stands to benefit from this law, and not believe the independent bodies like the Human Rights Commission and the Law Society?

Hon MARK BURTON: As usual, amongst those various questions there were a number of completely inaccurate assumptions. The Electoral Finance Bill is about ensuring that we never again have a repeat of the appalling behaviour of the National Party and its Exclusive Brethren friends, where it sought to outspend and buy an election result.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister disputing the fact that the Labour Party has written a law that heavily favours an incumbent Government because it can spend what it likes on pushing its point of view right through election year, heavily favours incumbent MPs because their public spending can no longer be counted as an election expense, and heavily regulates and restricts private citizens and political parties, who cannot have an opinion unless it meets criteria that the Labour Party has laid down?

Hon MARK BURTON: I absolutely disagree with all of the propositions the member puts forward.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether—

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. A member called out a term that you have said is unparliamentary. He said: “Tell the truth.” You ruled that term out a few weeks ago.

Madam SPEAKER: I did not hear that because there is so much noise. But if the member did say that, he will withdraw and apologise.

Hon David Cunliffe: The inaccuracy to which I referred is that the member alleged that this is a Labour Party matter; the matter is before a select committee that represents all parties of the House.

Madam SPEAKER: I am not quite sure what relevance that has. I did not hear, because there is so much noise coming from the backbench. I did not hear the comment. If the member made that comment would he stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon David Cunliffe: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Madam Speaker, while we are still on that point of order—because you have not ruled and therefore the point of order was live—Mr Brownlee started yelling out across the House all kinds of abuse. I suggest that he might be required to stand, withdraw, and apologise. It might be a good day for us all to be slightly better behaved.

Madam SPEAKER: Will the member please do so.

Gerry Brownlee: I wish to apologise to the Hon David Cunliffe. I fully and totally withdraw my remarks.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to—

Gerry Brownlee: Just write the cheque!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When that member pays the GST back I will pay this back, yes. More important, I have spent more personal money on public causes than all those members together, plus the pack of hypocrites in the press gallery. If members doubt that, they should challenge me. Now back to the question of the day. Is the Minister of Justice aware that Canada—[Interruption] Well, all that member has done is pay his sponsors back, and most corruptly so.

Madam SPEAKER: We are going to have this question in silence because there is too much chipping across the House, and interventions.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just want to clarify something. Is this the Minister in charge of this country’s diplomacy?

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is inappropriate for any member to allege or assert in this House that any member of the House is under the thumb or the guidance of anyone from outside of the House. Mr Peters, I think, therefore should withdraw and apologise for that remark, lest we should start talking about honours lists.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, I was not quite sure who it was the comment referred to, but if that member has taken offence and asked for it to be withdrawn and apologised for, then it should be.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps Mr Brownlee can make good his allegation by inference in his last statement, before he dropped to his knees, by getting up, showing some character, and backing up what he just said about an honours list—because I am prepared to give him the facts for that right now. I know the allegation the National Party has made, but I will give him the facts right now, which will show what a deceitful, misleading person he is. I ask him to do it now.

Madam SPEAKER: I know that the members want to give the Clerk a good send off, but I am not quite sure this is the way to do it. That was not a point of order. Would the Rt Hon Winston Peters please ask his question, in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I take that challenge as one I met and therefore the statement and allegation by inference were totally untrue at the start. My question to the Minister of Justice is this—

Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given that most of the inappropriate comments are from the questioner, maybe the question should be in silence.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister of Justice aware that both Canada and the UK are two of only nine countries that have had an unbroken line of democracy these last 153 years, and when did he last hear the allegation that the UK—that is, Westminster—or Canada, were fascist countries?

Hon MARK BURTON: Indeed, I believe the member is correct, and I think it is a matter of some interest to me that those who constantly attack the provisions that basically seek to align in reasonable ways with those jurisdictions seem to have some fundamental difficulty with the idea of protecting the participatory right of New Zealand citizens in their own electoral processes.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is a word beginning with “h” that members are not allowed to use in the House in respect of other members. Is it appropriate for a member to use that word about other people present in the House who are unable to stand and take offence or defend themselves—and I mean members of the press gallery, because a little earlier in this exchange the member accused members of the press gallery of being hypocrites?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Unfortunately, there is nothing in the Standing Orders to prevent anything from being said about anybody outside the House; it is a matter of taste and convention. In this particular case, I am sure that those who have certain things said about them have ample retaliatory powers should they care to use them.

Madam SPEAKER: The Leader of the House is correct in that it applies only to matters in the House. I think he explained the point quite well in terms of one’s own defence.

Rodney Hide: In considering amendments to the Electoral Finance Bill, both at the select committee and in the House, was the idea of amending the regulatory time period entertained, or is that something that is set in stone; and is the real purpose of the bill simply to stop the National Party from erecting billboards in the new year?

Hon MARK BURTON: I think it is fair to say that the various provisions of the bill enjoy varying degrees of commitment and determination on the part of various parties in the House. There have been many submissions to give variation not only to the one the member refers to but also, as he will know, to spending caps and a number of other matters. As to the second part of his question, the sole purpose of the bill is certainly not to prevent National Party billboards from being erected, but, given the quality of them, it would certainly be a positive for the landscape.

ASEAN Countries—Trade

6. DIANNE YATES (Labour) to the Minister of Trade: What has been the level of recent growth in the value of New Zealand’s trade with ASEAN countries?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade): In the last 2 years New Zealand exports to ASEAN countries increased in value by 28 percent, from nearly $2.4 billion in the year to June 2005, to about $3.1 billion in the year to June 2007. In the last year alone, the value of our trade with ASEAN has grown by 16 percent. That represents excellent progress.

Dianne Yates: What progress has been made in our trade with Singapore and Thailand since New Zealand concluded free-trade agreements with those countries?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership Agreement came into effect on 1 July 2005. In the 2 years since then exports have increased by 36.5 percent. That is substantially ahead of the 14.1 percent average increase in exports to all destinations recorded over the same period. Trade with Singapore since 2005 has increased by a total of 22.8 percent. The growth of New Zealand exports to the region overall has been very impressive, and I think that the closer economic partnerships with those two countries have contributed to that trade growth.

Dianne Yates: What has the Government done to further develop New Zealand’s trade with South-East Asia?

Hon PHIL GOFF: New Zealand, together with Australia, is currently negotiating a free-trade agreement with the ASEAN countries as a whole. The conclusion of that free-trade agreement will clearly assist growth in trade, depending on its level of ambition. But even more important, it will increase our standing within the world’s most dynamic region, which is Asia. Recently in Jakarta I also signed a trade and investment facilitation arrangement with Indonesia, which will enhance our trade and economic relationship with the biggest market we have in South-East Asia. Our exports to Indonesia are now worth about $650 million a year. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise is also increasing its efforts—for example, by setting up a very successful Beachheads programme in the South-East Asia area.

Gerry Brownlee: Has the Minister of Foreign Affairs raised with him any concerns about the impact of the Government’s immigration policies on trade with ASEAN nations following his statement yesterday that “when you talk about an Asia disconnect or lack of relationship with Asia what you are talking about is a failed immigration policy.”; if not, what action does he intend to take with regard to the concerns of the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the Government’s policy having failed in this area?

Hon PHIL GOFF: No, the Minister has not raised that issue with me, but he gave a very good speech yesterday in the great hall next to this Chamber, launching a white paper on New Zealand’s relations with Asia. He said that “we should never underestimate the value of personal contact if we are to become truly engaged with Asia.” I would also say, as the member of Parliament representing the electorate with the biggest ethnic grouping within it, that the people of Asian origin within my electorate make a huge contribution to my community and to New Zealand.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Minister tell us what proportion of New Zealand’s imports of illegally and unsustainably logged timber and timber products originate from ASEAN countries, where 2.3 million hectares a year are being totally clear-felled, and would he be happy to see that part of our trade with ASEAN reduced?

Hon PHIL GOFF: This Government, and New Zealand, takes illegal logging—as it does illegal fishing—very seriously. We do what we can to prevent the importation into New Zealand of products that are so logged. I cannot give a specific answer to the member, because that would require details I do not have with me, but if she would like to put that question down in written form then I would be happy to get her the details.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Taking up Mr Brownlee’s question, is there a reason for the business investors’ rules and also the full Immigration Act to be changed by this Government; does that not point out the wisdom of some of the comments that have been made about targeting for economic and social reason the right immigration into New Zealand, and do those two changes not underscore those policies?

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Question No. 6 is set down for the Minister of Trade, not the Minister of Immigration. If you think about the content of that question, Madam Speaker, you would realise that it never mentioned trade, but simply immigration rules.

Madam SPEAKER: But it was related to a question that the member asked that was, in fact, related to it. Would the Minister address the question only in the context of his own portfolio.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. How does that work? I asked a very specific question about the trade relationship with ASEAN nations. To suddenly get the Minister on his feet answering questions about the Government’s immigration policy and about changes to immigration laws, and other arrangements around immigration, hardly fits with a question about trade with ASEAN nations.

Madam SPEAKER: But, as I recall, the member also made reference to comments that were made by a Minister relating to immigration. So the Minister will keep within the rules if the Minister addresses only those matters related to the portfolio.

Hon PHIL GOFF: The presence within New Zealand of ethnic communities—particularly, for example, the Indian and Chinese ethnic communities—gives us a greater understanding, culturally, linguistically, and in terms of trade potential, of trade with the countries of origin from which those people come. In respect of the member’s question, I know that the Minister of Immigration has been addressing, over a long period of time, ways of improving the targeting of our immigration policy. But I reiterate that the people whom I deal with on a weekly basis within my electorate are hugely skilled people who come from Asia and who make a great contribution to our country. We should be grateful for that contribution.

Conservation, Department—Environment Court Case

7. Hon DAVID CARTER (National) to the Minister of Conservation: Does he stand by his answers in the House last week on the Bayly Trust Environment Court case?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation): Yes.

Hon David Carter: Why did the Minister say that the Department of Conservation pursued the case to the Environment Court because Bayley Trust was “not prepared to put the land into a covenant” when, in fact, the Department of Conservation never requested that at any stage?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The Department of Conservation is not the consenting authority; the Department of Conservation’s responsibility is as the guardian. In fact, it has a statutory obligation to be the guardian and advocate for New Zealand’s unique biodiversity. The district council, in its granting of the consent, made reference to the covenant but did not put it into the paperwork. Because the Department of Conservation challenged and appealed the decision, we got a good outcome in the end.

Lesley Soper: What outcomes was the Department of Conservation seeking through its Environment Court action in the Bayly Trust case?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The Department of Conservation has had a longstanding and well-known interest in the regionally significant mature kanuka forest at Waikatea. Although the landowners said they would develop a covenant to protect those values, they were never prepared to make specific commitments. Attempts were made to resolve this issue, but the landowner remained unwilling to provide specific guarantees that could be incorporated into a legally enforceable covenant. The Department of Conservation had no choice but to appeal the consent to the Environment Court. Informing its view on the application, my department was also mindful that the Bayly Trust had already sprayed 600 hectares elsewhere on the property that had been identified as a recommended area for protection. As I told the House last week, as a result of the court action my department has secured the protection of approximately 280 hectares of mature forest through a legally enforceable covenant, incidentally saving the taxpayer $2 million in carbon credits along the way.

Hon David Carter: Why does the Minister claim that the Department of Conservation’s Environment Court action—costing the taxpayer over $100,000—was necessary when, in fact, the Bayly Trust offered to protect 280 hectares of mature kanuka forest?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I was reminded in listening to that question from the member of the wise old proverb: “Actions speak louder than words.”

Hon David Carter: Does the Minister think it is acceptable that the Department of Conservation’s primary ecological witness, Professor Clarkson, never even visited the farm; if so, why?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: What I can say is that Department of Conservation staff, including Department of Conservation scientists, on a number of occasions visited the property. This is a simply story. The landowner made all sorts of promises, but was never prepared to put them in writing. By taking him to court, the Department of Conservation has ensured that this area has been protected, and has saved carbon credits.

Hon David Carter: Why did the Minister claim in the House last week that court action was necessary because the landowner walked away from mediation discussions, when, in fact, Bayly Trust, Wairoa District Council, and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council were all keen to mediate a solution but the Department of Conservation was not prepared to negotiate?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I am delighted to hear that. It does not really explain, though, why the landowners never turned up for meetings, it does not explain why they did not put the covenants into the deal, and it also does not explain why they still have not done that, in spite of being required to by the Environment Court.

Electoral Finance Bill—Multiparty Democracy

8. R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) to the Minister of Justice: What aspects of the Electoral Finance Bill will enhance multiparty democracy in an MMP environment?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): The longer regulated period—which enjoyed some discussion earlier in the afternoon—during which third parties will have to declare their position, coupled with the cap on what third parties can spend in an election campaign, will mean that third-party participation in election campaigns is open and fair. It will also mean that the right of citizens to participate without having their voices overwhelmed by those who have substantial wealth to pour into the electoral process is well protected.

R Doug Woolerton: Would the Minister not agree that this bill provides an opportunity for all parties in Parliament, whatever their relative size, to work towards a fair and an equitable system, and that it provides the opportunity to shed some of the residual inherent bias in favour of larger parties that existed under first past the post?

Hon MARK BURTON: I think that the member is essentially correct in that regard, and I have to say it is something of a mystery to me why one of the old parties, the National Party, has no confidence in its ability to fight an election on the quality and merit of its ideas.

R Doug Woolerton: Is it not a fact that at the 2005 election we saw billboards appearing as early as February and March, huge spending by third-party interests—not just by the Brethren—and massive expenditure by both Labour and National, and that none of that is in the interests of new parties that are trying to seek representation?

Hon MARK BURTON: The essential point the member is making is fair—that is, during an election year the opportunity exists for all citizens, all groups, with a legitimate interest in our electoral system to have their say and to have their point of view reasonably expressed, but that none of them should be overwhelmed by the ability of a few to spend vast amounts of money.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that during the 2005 election the Labour Party issued a pledge card on which it spent $800,000 of taxpayers’ money, and that that was found to break the rules, but that under his Electoral Finance Bill that will now be legal?

Hon MARK BURTON: No, I cannot confirm that. But I can confirm that the Exclusive Brethren spent $350,000 on a pamphlet campaign, plus a further million dollars on another pamphlet campaign with the sole written intention of supporting the election of the National Party to Government and with the specific intention of getting around New Zealand’s electoral law. That I can confirm.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Can the Minister confirm that during the 2002 election campaign the National Party ran paid advertisements in newspapers, which were pledge advertisements, and that those were paid for out of the parliamentary vote?

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister has no responsibility.

Hon MARK BURTON: Yes, I certainly can.

R Doug Woolerton: Is it not a fact that having unregulated and unrestrained third parties spending huge amounts of money in support of particular political parties stifles free speech, because those who seek representation in Parliament are potentially drowned out by the avalanche of well-financed spin from outside interests?

Hon MARK BURTON: Again, I think the member is correct. I refer members to the December 2006 report of the House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee. It concluded—and this is particularly relevant to the New Zealand situation—among other things: “It is essential that both in perception and in reality, money cannot buy undue influence or, indeed, buy an election result from within or outside the party.” I think members would do well to consider that advice.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister—and this is a matter of reasonableness—why Fay Richwhite, as a third party, should not be able to pay the National Party a million dollars, as it did in a prior campaign, and then get all of the other assets around this country that had not already been sold flogged off to the company on the way through, so that its pay-off was to a factor of about 300:1?

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This Minister has no responsibility for answering a question from Mr Peters that is entirely hypothetical, misleading, and names a political party quite untruthfully.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I have asked on a question of principle as to what is wrong with a third party doing such-and-such a thing. Then I have given that example, which has never ever been denied by Fay Richwhite. If that member knew anything about the National Party’s workings, which I am sure he does—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell us about the scampi.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Of course I will tell him about the scampi; that is why I am suing two of his colleagues. That is why I won on 12 October. That is why—

Madam SPEAKER: If the member is making a point of order, would he please make it succinctly and without diversion.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, exactly, but the member wanted to know about the progress of the scampi case, and I have said that I just won on 12 October. That is why the case is going on.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. As the member who raised the point of order knows, of course hypothetical questions are asked. The general question was within the Minister’s responsibility. In replying to it he cannot, of course, answer in a way that addresses matters that are in the purview of the National Party alone.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You possibly were—

Gerry Brownlee: New Minister?

Ron Mark: Well, that is my point of order. The interjection that came from Nick Smith was made during a point of order, which, as we know, is meant to be heard in silence. That created the disorder. You have just given me the call to make this point of order, which was immediately interjected on by Mr Gerry Brownlee. In the past, people have been thrown out of the House for doing that. I leave it to your decision.

Madam SPEAKER: That member may well be thrown out of the House for his implications, again. I have ruled; there were several interjections. The point of order was not a point of order, and it made points that did create disorder. I rule that if there are any further interjections, people will leave the House.

Hon MARK BURTON: I say to the member that what is wrong with his proposition is that New Zealand enjoys an electoral system in which the voices of ordinary people can be heard, considered, and weighed up by electors. Our electoral system has never been for sale—until perhaps 2005, when it ran the risk of that—nor should it ever be allowed to be for sale.

Legal Services Agency—Confidence

9. KATE WILKINSON (National) to the Minister of Justice: Does he have confidence in the Legal Services Agency; if so, why?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Generally yes, but of course there is always room for improvement.

Kate Wilkinson: Does the Minister agree with the comments of Justice Duffy in Law News just last week that “Community law centres are under pressure and groan under a weight of bureaucratic expectations from the Legal Services Agency.” and “my own experiences in acting for two legally-aided persons last year did not encourage me to have further dealings with the Legal Services Agency.”, and what does he intend to do about it?

Hon MARK BURTON: I have not seen those particular comments but I am sure the member relays them faithfully to the House. I have ongoing work with the Legal Services Agency, looking at the effectiveness and efficiencies of its systems, including in relation to the agencies the member referred to.

Kate Wilkinson: Which statement is not correct: his statement on 1 March 2007: “the total listed legal aid provider number has increased”; the statement of Justice Duffy in Law News on 19 October 2007: “The number of lawyers prepared to act for legally-aided clients diminishes daily.”; or the Provider Remuneration Advisory Panel Report of September 2007, which shows, as a result of the analysis for the last 3 years: “a drop in civil providers … a large drop in providers with experience level 1, for family listed providers; a steady decline in active providers in most matter/law types … and … a steady decline an active family firms.”?

Hon MARK BURTON: The first problem—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Caught out!

Hon MARK BURTON: Could Dr Smith please, for once, just be quiet. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Those members who cause disorder through interjections will be leaving the Chamber the next time that happens.

Hon MARK BURTON: The problem with the member’s question, of course, is that it takes three different statements from three different sources quoted at three different times. Therefore, the point of comparison may, first, not be particularly helpful. Second, I think it really depends on which selective number crunching the member wants to play with. What I can say to the member is that for the year ended 30 June, the number of active providers—and I think these are the critical numbers that we should all be interested in; they are certainly the numbers I am interested in—for family law reduced from 922 in 2005-06 to 900 in 2006-07, which is a reduction of 22; the number of active providers for civil law increased from 418 to 452, which is an increase of 44; and the number of active providers for criminal law decreased from 823 to 821, which is a reduction of two. Overall, that is an increase in active providers.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Can the Minister confirm that the question that has just been asked called for an increase in Government spending, and given the contrast with question No. 1 today, which accused the Government of increasing spending too much, does the Legal Services Agency provide for mediation services between National MPs?

Madam SPEAKER: The latter part of the question is not in order; the first part is.

Hon MARK BURTON: In answer to the first part of the question, that is certainly the case. I suspect that National members’ income levels would require they pay for their own mediation.

Kate Wilkinson: Why is the Minister advertising on TradeMe and Newstalk ZB for more legal aid applicants when he knows that the number of lawyers prepared to act for legally aided clients diminishes daily?

Hon MARK BURTON: First, I am not. Second, the numbers I gave the member in the previous answer clearly belie the assertion she has just made.

Health Services—Bureaucrats

10. MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Has he received any reports of increases in the number of health bureaucrats?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes, I have, repeatedly. Only yesterday Tony Ryall tried one more time to run the cliché that there are armies of bureaucrats running the health system.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: There are!

Hon PETE HODGSON: Unfortunately for Mr Ryall, Mr Smith, and anyone else who likes to believe this cliché, the facts get in the way of their prejudice. Let me offer them a couple of examples. The first is that the Ministry of Health, which is of course the biggest collection of bureaucrats, manages to soak up less than 2 percent of the health budget; more than 98 percent of the health budget gets through to the front line. The second fact is that, across the whole sector, in recent years the proportion of health professionals has risen as a proportion of the total workforce, and the proportion of management, administration, and support staff has declined as a proportion of the total workforce. That is the case. Those are the facts. They are in the annual report. But, wait, there is one more little thing to be kept in mind here, and that is that if there were still further reductions in management, administration, and support staff, we would get into trouble because then we would have nurses answering the phones or doing the laundry, and that would not be very cost-effective, would it?

Maryan Street: Can the Minister advise the House again what the country gets for the massive reinvestment in health?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Immunisations are up; smoking is down; life expectancy has increased; 7,000 more Kiwis got elective surgical services this year; general practitioner fees have halved; most prescriptions are down from $15 to $3; 27 new hospitals are being, or have been, built; 1,000 more women are getting breast screening; and 50,000 more kids are getting fruit in schools each day. The list goes on and on. It is never enough, but those are facts, and they are all gains on where we were at the time of the change in Government.

Dr Jackie Blue: I seek leave to table two reports by the Minister of Health. The first report states “Wrong again Ryall”, and the second report admits that the Minister got it wrong.

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

Hon Tony Ryall: Since the Prime Minister promised to cut a swathe through the health bureaucracy, how many more people are employed in the Ministry of Health today compared with 6 years ago?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Since the Prime Minister said that it was important to cut a swathe through the health bureaucracy, this system has taken out an entire layer of bureaucrats. It used to be called the Health Funding Authority, before that it was called the Transitional Health Authority, and before that we had four regional health authorities. Guess what? They have all gone.

Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill—Amendments

11. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Is he confident that his proposed amendments to the Births, Death, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill will result in a workable bill; if so, why?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs): Yes. The proposed amendments to the Births, Death, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill contained in my letter to the select committee for its consideration seek to strike a balance between protecting private and personal information while still allowing access to that information for legitimate purposes. My proposals will require applicants for certificates and printouts of registered information to present adequate identification, create an access register so people can find out who has accessed their records, and enable persons, on request, to see that their records are not disclosed to the public. This would keep the bill workable and more agreeable.

Sandra Goudie: What benefit will be achieved by severely restricting access to public information, setting up more bureaucracy, and increasing costs for the New Zealand public?

Hon RICK BARKER: I think the member should listen to her staff member whom I am well advised expressed her dismay that her parents’ marriage certificate could be obtained and used to present for access to other services without her, her family, or anybody else being aware of it. Sandra Goudie’s member of staff expressed to her that no one should have access to her personal records or to her family’s personal records without their sanction.

Darien Fenton: What gave rise to the bill and the proposed excellent amendments?

Hon RICK BARKER: Identity fraud has been a growing problem in New Zealand and this is of growing concern to New Zealanders. This Labour-led Government is determined to take action on this. I am aware that in 2006 a Unisys security index survey found that 52 percent of New Zealanders were very concerned about unauthorised access or misuse of their personal information. In 2006 a fraud survey conducted by KPMG reported that 61 percent of respondents believed identity fraud was a major problem for business. It reported that it represents a reported 546 cases of identity fraud with a total value of $2.8 million. I would also draw to the House’s attention the concern raised by Sandra Goudie’s bench mate David Bennett, who wrote to me because he was concerned about one of his constituents whose birth certificate had been taken without authorisation. A driver’s licence was obtained and debts were incurred in that person’s name. David Bennett wrote to me and asked: “Could you please advise whether there are any plans to make the requirements more stringent when obtaining a birth certificate, in order to reduce the opportunity for identity theft?”. I suggest that National members get their heads together, see that this is a serious issue, and take a unified line on it.

Dr Pita Sharples: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. What definition of “whānau” will be applied in the amended Births, Death, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill to ensure that tangata whenua have access to whakapapa information?

Hon RICK BARKER: Under the proposals that I put to the select committee there would be no requirement for a definition of “whānau”; any person would be able to obtain access to the records, providing that person correctly identifies himself or herself to the registrar. There would be no restrictions in that regard.

Sandra Goudie: Does he agree with the KPMG report that identified no link between identity theft or fraud and access to birth, death, and marriage information, and does he agree with the New Zealand Herald editorial that stated that the bill seeks to make a change that is wrong and to make it for the wrong reasons; if not, how has he managed to anger just about every interested party to this bill?

Hon RICK BARKER: It is very interesting to see in a recently published paper that a person has been convicted for stealing the identity of a baby born in 1962 by using the birth certificate obtained from the record. That person is now facing conviction. As for media commentators, I would make this point. They have no responsibility at all for protecting individual citizens from identity theft—they are merely commentators. This Government takes the protection of New Zealand citizens against identity theft very seriously, and we want to make sure we do the best job we can whilst maintaining the balance of giving legitimate access to these records for legitimate reasons.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister give the House a firm assurance that his proposed amendments to the bill will not impact adversely on adoptees and prevent them obtaining, or even make it more difficult for them to obtain, relevant personal information?

Hon RICK BARKER: I give that member that assurance, yes.

Sandra Goudie: Why is he seeking to establish a costly bureaucracy to administer a problem that does not exist when the only person seeking to change the status quo is himself?

Hon RICK BARKER: I suggest that the member wake up to the reality that identity theft is a real problem. To have open and unrestricted remote digital access to New Zealand’s births, deaths, and marriages records would give an unparalleled scope for identity fraudsters. In this Parliament we need to be careful to ensure that we protect New Zealand citizens from identity theft. I take that responsibility seriously, even if that member does not.

Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill—New Legislation

12. CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Associate Minister of Commerce: Does she stand by her statement regarding the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill that “Under this Government there have been seven pieces of legislation concerning this matter, and indeed a number of new ones are coming through.”; if so, what are these new pieces of legislation and what intellectual property issues will they deal with?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Commerce): Yes, I stand by my statement. I was referring to the intellectual property trademarks and patents work stream, where we are looking at opportunities to maximise the economic and cultural returns New Zealanders get from their intellectual property, while also ensuring that New Zealanders have good access to information, research, and creative and cultural innovations from the rest of the world. The new legislation includes a Patents Bill that will replace the Patents Act 1953 and update New Zealand’s patents regime, and the Trademarks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill, which contains provisions to allow accession to three international treaties concerning trademarks, and which will empower the Ministry of Economic Development and the New Zealand Customs Service to enforce criminal offence provisions for trafficking in counterfeit goods and pirated works. Other new legislation is being considered.

Christopher Finlayson: Why has she yet again failed to address the important issue of tribal ownership of intellectual property, particularly given that the World Intellectual Property Organization has been working on the issue for years, and Māori, quite apart from the claims under Wai 262, have been asking the Government that the issue be addressed in any intellectual property law reform?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: The member confuses traditional knowledge with intellectual property. Those are two streams of work. There is extensive work going on. New Zealand is an active participant in the World Intellectual Property Organization, as it is in the Pacific Arts Festival and other international fora relating to traditional knowledge. We are also doing a great deal of work under the Wai 262 process, where we are waiting of course for a Waitangi Tribunal finding. Traditional knowledge is being addressed in a number of areas, but it is not intellectual property in most cases.

Dr Pita Sharples: Does she agree with Dr Paul Tapsell that the issue about the repatriation of toi or uru moko from the Museum of Natural History in Rouen is about the protection of the trade in human beings; if so, what action will she be taking to ensure that toi moko are returned from France?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: I have not seen that quotation from Dr Paul Tapsell. However, I am aware of his concerns and of those of many other people. Te Papa is leading an extensive survey and programme of repatriation of toi moko.

Christopher Finlayson: Why has the current legislation failed to deal with person-to-person file-sharing and websites that encourage video sharing, and how will any new pieces of legislation, which she said yesterday were “coming through”, deal with those matters?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: It is part of our work programme, and we will get it on to the legislative timetable as quickly as possible.

Christopher Finlayson: Why is it that new section 226D, inserted into the principal Act by clause 89 of the bill, means that any circumvention device would be able to be freely made and sold, simply because it could be used by someone for a legal purpose, and does that not mean that the ban on the circumventing of devices is almost irrelevant?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: I understand that this matter can be debated in the course of considering the bill that is before the House at present. However, the general provision around technical protection measures includes, particularly, provision for people who have a sight disability or who are blind, and who therefore have good reason to be given access to information. All of this legislation balances the competing interests of people who have legitimate interests. My concern is to make sure that New Zealanders have the best access, and that the owners of intellectual property, have the best protection that we can manage.

Dr Pita Sharples: What response will she make to Māori concerns regarding the intellectual property guide that she is launching tonight—concerns that Māori have consistently raised over the past 16 years in the Wai 262 claim—including concerns that it undermines the underlying principle that not all mātauranga Māori should be commercialised, and that new measures must be designed to protect the collective and intergenerational interests of iwi Māori in Māori biocultural heritage issues?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: That issue is generally being dealt with under the Wai 262 claim. The Māori guide to intellectual property, which we are launching this evening, is trying to give a better description to all New Zealanders, but particularly to Māori, of what is intellectual property, so that they can gain whatever protection they seek in that area, recognising that all traditional knowledge is not necessarily intellectual property and therefore cannot be protected through that process.

Questions to Members

Electoral Finance Bill—Committee Timetable

1. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: What is the timetable for the committee’s consideration of the Electoral Finance Bill?

LYNNE PILLAY (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): The bill is still before the committee. Consideration of all aspects of the bill is ongoing, and a number of further meetings are planned.

Rodney Hide: Will the committee be considering further involvement of the Human Rights Commission in its consideration; if so, what and how?

LYNNE PILLAY: Yes; the Justice and Electoral Committee will be inviting the Human Rights Commission to have further involvement in its consideration of the Electoral Finance Bill. The committee today authorised advisers on the bill to consult the Human Rights Commission, and resolved to seek further comment from the commission on some of the committee consideration thus far. I thank the MP for Epsom for his constructive role.

Christopher Finlayson: Can the member give this House an assurance that all departmental reports will be provided to committee members in a timely manner, so that the reports may be properly considered prior to deliberation, or will committee members be forced to have to continue to endure her chaotic chairmanship?

Madam SPEAKER: I do not think that last comment was appropriate. Would the member please withdraw it.

Christopher Finlayson: I withdraw.

LYNNE PILLAY: As the member is aware, or should be aware, that is committee business and is discussed in committee by committee members.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek the leave of the House to table the membership of the Justice and Electoral Committee, which shows that Rodney Hide is a member, and was there but only for 15 minutes, so why on earth is he asking these questions?

Leave granted.

ENDS

© Scoop Media