Questions And Answers - Thursday, 3 August 2006

Questions to Ministers

Numeracy—Government Initiatives

1. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to lift numeracy standards?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Last week I announced the results of the numeracy professional development project. The project showed major improvements in maths results across the 400 schools involved last year, the highest improvement being amongst students who were previously the lowest achievers. There was also a lift in achievement across, particularly, Māori and Pasifika students. This project has been strongly endorsed across the education sector, including the more than 1,600 schools that have now been involved since the year 2000, and shows that we can now expect steady improvement in the achievement of students in the area of numeracy.

Moana Mackey: What else is the Government doing to ensure it meets its goal of ensuring that all students are able to achieve high standards in numeracy?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: A great deal. We ensure that every teacher has the tools to diagnose the learning needs of students, through assessment tools such asTTle. We invest $20 million a year in professional development projects that give teachers the skills they need to lift the numeracy standards of young people. Through the new curriculum, we have set out the numeracy achievements we expect schools to deliver for students at each level. For the first time, we have numeracy standards under National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 1 and university entrance. Our investment in numeracy goes alongside our investment in literacy, to create a strong foundation for all New Zealanders to succeed in the school system.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Can the Minister confirm that numeracy covers only two of the five strands of the mathematics curriculum requirements; and how does the laudable emphasis on numeracy gel with the possibly contradictory expectation that schools deliver a balanced curriculum?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, I can confirm the first part of the member’s question. But I draw his attention to the fact that with the way the curriculum is now structured, we are expecting students to be able to do a range of knowledge-area skills and competencies within the classroom by, for example, doing inquiry forms of learning, which might combine science with maths and English, and would bring them up to the appropriate standard across those subject areas.

Ingram Report—Work Permits and Residency

2. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Did his department grant work or residence permits, following immigration assistance from Taito Phillip Field, to any of the eight Thai immigrants, or their partners, who allegedly attended a meeting with Taito Phillip Field on 2 October 2005, shortly after the launch of the Ingram inquiry?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): Yes. I am advised that the cases in question were the subject of the Ingram inquiry. I am further advised that Mr Ingram had full access to all of the department’s files.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is the Minister concerned that of the eight Thai immigrants at that meeting on 2 October who were assisted by Taito Phillip Field with either their own or their partners’ immigration applications, only three cooperated with the Ingram inquiry—one of whom, Mr Srikaew, claimed he had not seen Mr Field at that meeting when Mr Field claimed he recalled seeing him—and why, if there were no immigration issues to hide at that meeting, does he believe most of those new immigrants refused to talk to the Ingram inquiry about it?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have no idea, nor should I have any. However, I am aware—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please continue.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have no idea, because it is not for the Minister to be inside the head of witnesses to an inquiry that has already taken place.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is the Minister concerned that the Serious Fraud Office conveyed to the Ingram inquiry allegations that the purpose of the meeting on 2 October 2005 between the Thai immigrants and Mr Field was to establish who, within the group, was the leak to the media in relation to Mr Field’s assisting those persons with applications for work and residency permits, in return for their working on houses owned by Mr Field; if that was not the purpose of the meeting, why would most of the group refuse to talk to the inquiry about it?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Serious Fraud Office lies outside my ministerial responsibilities.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is the Minister concerned that the police information provided to Noel Ingram stated that Mr Field had alleged at the meeting that one of the attendees—understood to be Mr Chaikhunpol—was the leak to the media; if the meeting were not part of a cover-up around immigration issues, why did Mr Ingram find Mr Field’s recollections of it shortly after the meeting to be “not particularly helpful”?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I do not have access to the background behind the police statements. I am not the Minister of Police.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Given that in response to questioning by Mr Ingram, Taito Phillip Field said, in respect of the meeting on 2 October 2005, that he possibly called in to Ms Thaivichit’s place to say hello, that he could not recall what prompted the visit or the number of people present, but that he did concede that there may have been some talk about allegations involving Thai immigrants that had featured in the media, if the meeting was not part of an attempted cover-up of what went on in respect of the immigration cases promoted by Taito Phillip Field what other explanation does the Minister have for Noel Ingram’s inability to establish what went on at that meeting?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Misrepresentations to any inquiry or to the department are a serious matter. I am aware that a member of this House, in July 2005, made representations supporting a bid for residence by a foreign national who married a New Zealand resident soon after arriving. The representations stated the couple were “living as man and wife”, but they had already told the New Zealand Immigration Service that the marriage had broken down irreconcilably and the husband had withdrawn his support for the wife’s immigration application. Regrettably, the member presented false and misleading information to the Associate Minister and exercised very poor judgment in assessing the case. The Associate Minister declined to intervene. The member was Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I thought you might take some interest in that. In respect of the question before us, which is around a meeting involving Taito Phillip Field on 2 October, the Minister has no details whatsoever in order to be able to provide an answer to any of the queries of the House, but he is able to provide a huge amount of detail on a case completely disconnected from the question on the Order Paper.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is the Minister concerned by Noel Ingram’s claim that his investigation into the meeting on 2 October had been unsatisfactory, leaving several immigration issues unresolved, including whether the purpose of the gathering was to identify the source of the allegations involving Mr Field and Mr Chaikhunpol that had appeared in the media, whether Mr Chaikhunpol’s move from his former accommodation was as a result of an effective edict from Mr Field, and whether those identified as being part of the gathering also did work on houses owned by Mr Field in consideration of Mr Field’s assistance on immigration matters; if he is not concerned by this apparent cover-up on immigration matters, why is he not?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I repeat that Mr Ingram QC has had access to all information held by the department on those eight cases.

Fisheries—By-catch

3. METIRIA TUREI (Green) to the Minister of Fisheries: Is he satisfied that sufficient progress is being made to decrease non-fish by-catch in New Zealand waters?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries): Yes. A number of management measures are in place to avoid, remedy, and mitigate the incidental catch of non-fish species by fishers. The ministry and fishers continue to investigate new methods and approaches to improve performance.

Metiria Turei: Why, then, do his own ministry figures show that over the past three seasons non-fish by-catch, such as seabirds, sea lions, and seals—like the one in the photo I am holding here—has not declined in New Zealand’s biggest squid fishery, the Auckland Islands?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Sometimes, industry initiatives and partnerships with Government make the glass half full rather than half empty. There is always concern about non-fish by-catch. If the member is interested, I can tell her that partnerships between industry and Government are fostering exchanges of crews and technologies between fleets in different countries; hosting national and regional fisher forums to enable fishermen from different fleets to exchange ideas and information; employing advisory officers in a number of countries, including South Africa and countries in South America, to work alongside skippers and crew; and so on. There is always concern about non-fish by-catch, but, in fact, lots of initiatives are being taken, and sometimes industry deserves thanks for, and congratulations on, that, rather than brickbats.

Metiria Turei: Why, then, given the Minister’s concern about non-fish by-catch, and the interest of the industry in preventing non-fish by-catch, has no limit been placed on fishing-related deaths of seabirds, such as has been imposed on sea lions—I have a photo of a sea lion here—even though some seabirds in this country are much more at risk of extinction than the very rare Hooker’s sea lion is?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: There is a national plan of action on seabirds, which was approved by the Government in 2004. Implementation of the plan has resulted in codes of practice in the following fisheries: ling longline, joint venture tuna, and squid. Recently, I have implemented further regulatory mitigation measures for all vessels over 28 metres. As a result of those measures, there have been significant reductions in seabird mortalities.

Metiria Turei: Why has the ministry failed to meet every one of the deadlines in the national plan of action on seabirds that the Minister has just mentioned—seabirds like the albatross in the photo I have here that was mangled in the process of fishing—and why, 1 year on, have industry plans for decreasing seabird deaths still not been implemented?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I remind the member that no responsible fisher—either company, corporation, or individual—intends catching non-fish by-catch in the fisheries areas. Very significant measures are being taken by all fishers that I am aware of to mitigate these unfortunate events. But, with the best will in the world, nothing is perfect. Goals are there to be achieved, but from time to time targets are missed. I am convinced, and I have plenty of evidence to suggest, that very supportive and significant efforts are being made by the fishing industry to mitigate this non-fish by-catch.

Metiria Turei: I seek the leave of the House to table a number of documents, the first being the National Plan of Action to Reduce the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in New Zealand Fisheries, which was referred to in the questions and answers.

Leave granted.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table two photographs of dead albatross found by observers on squid fishery boats in the Auckland Islands.

Leave granted.

Ingram Report—Ministerial Revocation of Work Visa

4. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: On what basis did he advise the House last Wednesday that once the Associate Minister realised that Mr Sunan Siriwan was working without pay on Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa, he “acted to reverse his decision” to issue a ministerial direction for a work visa for Mr Siriwan?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): In September an alert was entered into the application management system at Mr O’Connor’s request so that no visa would be issued without reference back to the Associate Minister.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: When the Minister advised the House on Wednesday last week that once the Associate Minister realised that Mr Siriwan had been working for Mr Field without remuneration and staying in his house in Samoa, he “acted to reverse his decision”, how does he explain that action taking almost 3 months to occur?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Logically, that would refer to the amount of time it took for him to be clear about the information.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Precisely why did it take 11 weeks from when the Ingram report revealed that the Associate Minister unequivocally knew of Taito Phillip Field’s conflict of interest in his representations on behalf of Mr Siriwan, until he acted on 19 September to put a warning flag into the system?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Associate Minister acted effectively to ensure that no visa was issued. No visa was issued.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: When the Associate Minister told the Ingram inquiry, in respect of the allegation that Mr Siriwan was working unpaid for Mr Field and staying in his house in Samoa, that the information “certainly didn’t form part of my decision-making otherwise I would have absolutely rejected it”, why was that absolute rejection not actioned immediately the Associate Minister knew unequivocally of the conflict, 5 days after exercising his ministerial discretion?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: What is clear is that the Associate Minister did act unequivocally to ensure that the gentleman’s visa was not issued.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is there any other explanation for the fact that it took the Associate Minister more than 11 weeks to act on the knowledge of the conflict of interest in Taito Phillip Field’s representations on behalf of Mr Siriwan, a matter the Associate Minister claims would have caused him to reject Mr Field’s representations, other than the fact that it was almost 11 weeks before the matters surrounding the case became public?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: As I was not inside the Associate Minister’s head at the time, and as my department’s records do not contain the information that he seeks, I am afraid he is unable to establish proof by assertion.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is the real explanation for the fact that the Associate Minister did not act on the knowledge of the conflict of interest in Taito Phillip Field’s representations on behalf of Mr Siriwan until 19 September 2005 that Cabinet would have discussed the establishment of the Ingram inquiry at its meeting on 19 September 2005, the day before the Prime Minister’s announcement of the inquiry on 20 September, and that Cabinet discussion finally forced the Associate Minister to act on the matter the same day?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have no information to that effect, but I do have information that a member of this House, in May 2005, made representations supporting a bid for work permits by three Thai overstayers who ran a Thai restaurant in his electorate.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to say he cannot answer a question, but he can talk about some irrelevancy of some other thing that is completely unrelated? If you were on the ball, Madam Speaker, you would have stopped the Minister. I am also appalled that I had to shout my head off to get your attention.

Madam SPEAKER: I ask the member to please withdraw and apologise for that comment. I could not hear the member, because of the barracking. Secondly, I agree with the member. I was waiting to see whether there was a relevant connection, rather than cutting the Minister off in mid-sentence. If there was not, his answer would have been entirely out of order. But I was going to hear what he wanted to say. Would the member please withdraw and apologise for his inferences about the Chair.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raised this exact point of order on an earlier question of my colleague Dr Lockwood Smith and you completely ignored it on that occasion as well. I now seek that you simply give a ruling that when a member asks a question about a particular issue, and the Minister says: “No, I’m not going to answer that, but I’m going to answer something else.”, which is not related, you will rule that that is out of order.

Madam SPEAKER: I cannot rule on hypothetical questions. The Minister’s answer related to the question. [Interruption] I am sorry, but it is for the Minister to answer the question, or not.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I believe it was answered, and it related to the principle of expeditious decision-making in relation to information presented by a member.

Task Force Green—Enhanced Assistance to Farmers

5. JILL PETTIS (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What steps is the Government taking to utilise Enhanced Taskforce Green to assist farmers affected by recent adverse weather?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I am pleased to advise the House that the Government has approved up to $500,000 for Enhanced Taskforce Green support to assist farmers with clean-up activities required as a result of the South Island snow and the lower North Island storm and flood events. This programme is cleaning up, to date, over 100 properties. This includes 36 properties in the Mackenzie district, 20 in the Wairarapa, and 35, I believe, in Taranaki and Wanganui.

Jill Pettis: What type of assistance is Enhanced Taskforce Green providing to those farmers?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Enhanced Taskforce Green is being used to pay for around 70 workers to undertake clean-up activities and get farms back to operational levels. Traditionally, unemployed people have been used for Enhanced Taskforce Green, but because we are experiencing record low unemployment, we are also able to support displaced farm workers by hiring them for this programme. The scheme also provides funds to hire or purchase light equipment and to assist each of the councils involved. I am informed by Brian Doughty, who is the Federated Farmers clean-up coordinator in the South Taranaki, Wanganui, Rangitīkei area that Work and Income is doing exceptionally well with regard to the roll-out of Enhanced Taskforce Green.

R Doug Woolerton: How is the eligibility for Enhanced Taskforce Green assistance assessed?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Enhanced Taskforce Green does not have any stand-down requirement, and because of the extra capacity, including the administrative capacity, we do have the opportunity to get people on to those farms immediately. That is what is happening.

Ingram Report—Painters' Employment Status

6. Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Labour: Will her department interview Taito Phillip Field to determine whether or not the painters at 51 Church Street were engaged as employees and covered by minimum wage legislation; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Labour: The department is still considering a request from the member to investigate these matters. Any decisions in this area are, of course, operational ones, and the department’s decisions alone.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Can the Minister guarantee that the department will conduct an independent inquiry, beyond just reading the Ingram report, in light of the fact that Mr Field gave three different stories to Dr Ingram in three different interviews in respect of the work done at 51 Church Street?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The department’s inquiry will, obviously, be an independent one, which is why the Minister certainly will not play any role in directing it in any shape or form.

Sue Moroney: What reports, if any, has the Minister received concerning entitlements under New Zealand employment law?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Minister has received many reports, obviously, some of which make suggestions that we abandon not only the minimum wage but also minimum holiday entitlements, parental leave, and the moves to close the gender pay and employment gap. Those suggestions were made frequently in the past by Dr Donald Brash.

Dr Wayne Mapp: In light of the previous answers given by the Minister, how can this House have confidence that the department will examine all documents held or discovered by Dr Ingram in the course of his inquiry, and that this examination will involve interviewing both Mr Field and Mr Chaikhunpol, whom Dr Ingram said was underpaid?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member seems to be arguing that the Minister should ensure there is an independent inquiry by ordering the inquiry what to do. I think that if he thinks for a moment, he might realise that is somewhat illogical.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Well, in that case, how on earth can the Minister justify his statement in the House last week that there were no concrete reasons to believe that there were any issues around the minimum wage not being provided, when this clear statement is in the Ingram report: “I find that Mr Chaikhunpol was significantly underpaid for that work.”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: On the face of the report, it would appear to have been a contractual relationship, not an employment one. I am sure that if the member ever has anybody painting his house, it is a contractual relationship, not an employment one.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Why would the Minister have concluded last week that the Thai painters at 51 Church Street were independent contractors, given that Dr Ingram, at paragraphs 292 and 325 of the report, indicated that the invoices of payment to the painters produced by Mr Field could well be forgeries? Read the report.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have read the report. Because, if for no other reason, normally when people have their houses painted, it is a contractual relationship.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Given the previous answer, can the Minister say why one would conclude that there was actually an independent contractual relationship, when the very invoices involved were found by Dr Ingram to be possibly forgeries, and that those were the invoices allegedly produced by Mr Field, an honourable—so called—member of this House?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure you know what the point of order I am going to make is. All members are honourable and one is not allowed to cast aspersions on that fact.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I withdraw that remark. I would just invite the member to read the Ingram report.

Madam SPEAKER: I would also remind members that they ask questions and do not make statements, and the member started his question with a statement. So would the Minister now address the question.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have read the Ingram report and the Minister, in my view, was correct to conclude, on the face of it, that it appears to be a contractual relationship. Of course, what the member has asked her department to do is to determine whether, in fact, it may have been an employment relationship. If it is contractual, the department cannot actually investigate it.

Immigration Profiling Group—Functions

7. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: How long has the immigration profiling group he described last night on One News been in existence and how many decisions to allow people into New Zealand from high-risk countries are yet to be re-examined by the group?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): The immigration profiling group was established in June 2005. It is primarily responsible for processing and deciding visa and permit applications that present a risk to New Zealand’s international reputation. Another function of the immigration profiling group is to review past decisions made since May 2003. Applications covering approximately 1,000 people are still to be considered.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister confirm that the immigration profiling group was set up in the wake of revelations made by New Zealand First that former members of Saddam Hussein’s regime were living in New Zealand, and can he confirm that the fact that all immigration applications from high-risk countries are now processed in New Zealand also came about as a result of those revelations?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Government has for some time been increasing scrutiny on applications from higher-risk profile countries. The immigration profiling group was established as part of that ongoing work.

Steve Chadwick: What has this Government done to ensure the safety of New Zealand’s borders?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Government’s ongoing programme has included implementing a substantial range of border security measures during the last 5 years. They include passing the transnational organised crime Act, introducing Advance Passenger Processing, establishing the immigration fraud and investigations and intelligence units, establishing the immigration profiling group, and reviewing the Immigration Act to simplify and streamline the law, in order to further strengthen border security.

Keith Locke: Is not the big drop in visitor visa approvals for people from several high-risk countries due primarily to not terrorism dangers, or anything like that, but the immigration profiling group’s massive overreaction to overstayer problems; how else does he explain the huge drop in approvals for people from, for example, Zimbabwe, from 924 visas in 2004-05 to 306 last year, and people from Burma, from 116 to 72, and why is he punishing, for example, Zimbabwean New Zealanders by preventing their family members from visiting them?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: In short, no. I believe that the immigration profiling group is making a valuable contribution to the ongoing need of New Zealand for enhanced border security. That is a core part of our immigration policy, along with facilitation of those migrants we need to assist our skill shortage.

Peter Brown: Why does the number of high-risk countries identified by the Minister differ from the number identified by his predecessor, and what has happened in the past year that has allowed the Immigration Service to reduce the number of high-risk countries from 54 to 21?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am advised that currently 23 countries are identified as higher-risk and have their applications processed through the immigration profiling group. There have never been 54 countries whose citizens have had their applications processed through this unit.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: If the profiling group is going back over the cases of some thousands of immigrants from high-risk countries who have already been given permits and granted approval to be in New Zealand, how many so far have been found to have gained access to New Zealand on fraudulent grounds and had their permits revoked?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am not prepared at this time to put that information in the public domain, as it is sensitive to the work of the profiling group.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister clarify the situation: how far is the profiling group going back in terms of looking at decisions to allow people in from high-risk countries—is it pre-9/11; if not, will he tell us how far back it is going?

Hon Member: I think you’re safe.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I can confirm that the member is quite safe. May 2003 is the start date in terms of applications being subject to routine scrutiny. Of course, if there is evidence to suggest that an individual application from prior to that date is worth reconsideration, that reconsideration would be offered. I have received no such information regarding the member.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table an article from the Sunday Star-Times of 8 January, detailing Maurice Williamson’s campaigning for an Iraqi couple who have been prevented from visiting their family because of the harsh immigration profiling.

Leave granted.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a letter from the Minister of Immigration, David Cunliffe, dated 17 July, that includes a table that shows the huge drop in visitor visa approvals last year compared with the previous year, and shows that the question is one of reaction to overstaying, not terrorism.

Leave granted.

Ingram Report—Integrity of Representations

8. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Immigration: What steps, if any, are being taken or will be taken to check the integrity of the representations made by Taito Phillip Field in relation to the 262 successful appeals to the Associate Minister on the basis of those representations?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): The reasons have already been specified to the member’s colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith in my letter to him of 31 July.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member like to give a little more information as to what was in that letter.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am happy to, but it was rather a long letter. Firstly, the department’s files, by definition, contain the advice presented to the Associate Minister. Any relevant information not known to the department but known to the advocate for the client could not or would not necessarily be evident from a check of that file.

Gerry Brownlee: Why is the Minister so comfortable with representations made by Taito Phillip Field when Dr Ingram found Mr Field’s evidence to be unreliable and in conflict with evidence given to the inquiry by other witnesses?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I believe that the Associate Minister, then and now, should be entitled to rely on the representations made by members of the House—such as a member of the House in May 2005 who made representations supporting a bid for work permits by three Thai overstayers who ran a Thai restaurant in his electorate. The representation was successful, and the three were granted work permits. The member was Dr Wayne Mapp. I trust that Dr Mapp or his agent have never accepted even as much as a morsel of food or drink in that establishment without paying the full price. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Order, please!

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that member has moved out of his way to have a better barracking seat for this particular question, but I will carry on. Why is the Minister refusing to review the 262 cases represented by Mr Field, knowing that some of the evidence he gave to the Ingram inquiry was at odds with other evidence given to the inquiry, yet he has the time, apparently, to trawl through all the applications made by National members of Parliament to the Minister, despite there being absolutely no evidence of them lining their pockets, as Mr Field clearly has done out of his representations?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that you sustained a similar point of order from Dr Michael Cullen earlier, in that it is out of order to besmirch the reputation of a member in that way.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: He said he lined his pockets—it’s quite true.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I think perhaps the member could just withdraw that—the import of his question. We are trying very hard in this House to be—

Gerry Brownlee: Fair enough.

Madam SPEAKER: Please withdraw.

Gerry Brownlee: Why is it that the Minister is refusing to evaluate or review the 262 ministerial discretions granted on the advocacy of the honourable Taito Phillip Field, yet he has had time to trawl though similar discretionary decisions made on the advocacy of National Party members, when there is absolutely no evidence that anyone on this side of the House had a house tiled in Samoa, a house painted in Auckland, a house painted in Wellington, or any other manner of personal preferments that may have come as a result of that particular representation?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Because I am advised that the department is not aware of any other case where allegations have been made that full disclosure has not been made.

Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister comfortable staking his career on the integrity of Taito Phillip Field when Mr Field told the Ingram inquiry three totally different and conflicting stories about one immigration case and apparently cannot even remember painting his own house?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Minister of Immigration is responsible for the systems of the department and not for the production or process of the Ingram inquiry.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that he will not review the 262 ministerial discretions made in relation to cases advocated by Taito Phillip Field because he fears he may find more examples where Mr Field has been reckless with the truth?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have seen no suggestion the department’s advice to me today, or to the Associate Minister was on any such case inadequate. So to date, I have seen no basis for reviewing such a large number of files. If the member has any new evidence to suggest to the contrary, I suggest he provides it to my office or to the department.

Gerry Brownlee: Would the Minister tell the House which complaints about National Party members’ representations have forced him to put his department on a huge review of applications made by us, without any such complaint either?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have neither asked the department to do a huge review of National Party members nor a review of huge National Party members.

Gerry Brownlee: How can the Minister expect us to believe that answer when we know the process for answering parliamentary questions, we know that the department this morning would have seen the question set down by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, that had nothing to do with any immigration applications lodged by National Party members, but somehow the department manages to trawl up a few for the Minister just in case he needs a hand; why should we now believe this Minister of Immigration?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: A Minister does not just take advice from his department.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know your views on addressing questions, but that reply is no address surely to my question. My question was about whether his department had voluntarily trawled through every other member of Parliament’s applications studiously, ignoring the 262 applications granted in favour of Taito Phillip Field, and then just happened to present those to the Minister. For the Minister to say he does not just take advice from his department is not an answer, because clearly no one else has access to that material.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I think the member can take it from my answer that the implication is the department has mounted no such trawl.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that the real reason he is not investigating the 262 cases represented by Mr Taito Phillip Field, who is described by the Prime Minister as having bad judgment, and by Dr Ingram as being somewhat evasive in his answers, is, in fact, because the Prime Minister has told him not to go into it, it is all too murky, and it will cost the Government too much?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I can confirm that that is not the case.

Budget 2006—Māori Arts, Culture, and Heritage

9. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: Does she recall her address to the Hui Taumata in 2005, when she said: “As Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, I would like to acknowledge the role of Māori in reflecting the essence of who we are, where we have come from and what we can aspire to be. Māori are at the cutting edge of our success throughout the arts, culture, and heritage sector, and have helped to raise the profile of our nation to new heights”; if so, what initiatives are there in Budget 2006 to specifically support Māori in the arts, culture and heritage sector?

Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage) on behalf of the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: Yes. As announced in Budget 2006, this Labour-led Government increased Government baseline funding for arts, culture, and heritage by $10 million over 4 years. In doing so, we continue to invest in our vibrant arts and cultural sector for the benefit of all New Zealanders. This increases the organisations’ annual direct Government funding to $15.5 million, up from just $2.4 million in the year 2000.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Who is the “we” referred to in the statement of the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage to the Hui Taumata acknowledging the role of Māori in reflecting the essence of who “we” are, where “we” have come from, and what “we” can aspire to be; what role do Māori arts, culture, and heritage have in building our national identity?

Hon MAHARA OKEROA: I would suggest the answer to that question rests in the last statement that member made, about generating a national identity. I would suspect that the “we” refers to us collectively as people.

Dr Pita Sharples: Tēnā koe, tēnā tātou katoa. If Māori arts have “raise[d] the profile of our nation to new heights”, why, then, were the words “in New Zealand the uniqueness of Māori arts is recognised and valued, along with the diversity of our cultural heritage” removed from the new draft curriculum statement?

Hon MAHARA OKEROA: As Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, I do not have any responsibility with regard to the latter part of the member’s question.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What provision is made for the 91.6 percent of Māori students who are in mainstream primary and secondary schools to recognise and value the uniqueness of Māori arts, given that Māori arts have been deleted from the new curriculum?

Hon MAHARA OKEROA: That question can be responded to by saying the member should make reference to the arts curriculum, and also to a recent survey by the organisation Creative New Zealand that shows and analyses Māori participation in the arts, which is, increasingly, quite significant at this time and going towards the future.

Dr Pita Sharples: I seek leave to table the arts statement from the New Zealand Curriculum Framework of 1993, which recognises the uniqueness of Māori arts.

Leave granted.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I seek leave of the House to table the Prime Minister’s address to the Hui Taumata of 1 March 2005.

Leave granted.

Question Time

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to give a considered ruling on a matter that has come up to do with question time today, and I refer particularly to questions that have been asked of the Minister of Immigration. Normally, if a particular case was the subject of questions, the Minister would advise the House that he was not prepared to provide information to the House in relation to a particular case, and would require that the House accept a response couched in fairly general terms. Today on a couple of occasions we have had the Minister, not having been asked about any particular cases, offer to furnish to the House information not so much about those cases but about the representations that have been made in relation to those cases by members on this side of the House. Clearly, as the Minister is in such a generous frame of mind with regard to information, I want you to give the House some advice as to whether we can now expect that the Minister of Immigration will answer quite specific questions about individual cases before him, since he feels free to make details of those representations by members of Parliament available to the House on a gratuitous basis. I want your assurance that you will require him to give those detailed answers in future, should we seek them by way of questions.

Madam SPEAKER: I suggest that the member ask any such questions, if he so wishes, in the future, and rulings will be given in accordance with whatever the answers are. It is not for the Speaker to give hypothetical rulings.

Mental Health—Government Initiatives

10. Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Health: What steps, if any, is the Government taking to improve the mental health of New Zealanders?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: This Government has increased its investment in mental health by 75 percent in nominal dollars and by 44 percent in real terms, since 1999. We have introduced mental health programmes, we have expanded forensic support, we have undertaken the most successful de-stigmatisation campaign in New Zealand’s history, and on Tuesday we released a widely supported 10-year action plan for the sector. The list goes on, but of course we still have more work to do.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Why is it that when the Government has increased spending on specialist mental health services by nearly $1 billion per year, the number of hospitalisations for attempted suicide has soared by nearly 20 percent between 1999 and 2003 and, even worse, the rate for young women aged from 15 to 24 has increased by 45 percent?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I am sure the member, as a former general practitioner, knows that the causes and analysis of symptoms around suicide and the development of suicide statistics are an extraordinarily complex area. It is important to recognise that if we take the peak of suicides in New Zealand at around 1998, there has been a 15 percent reduction in suicides. Again, it is always easy to score political points on glasses being half empty, but this glass, in terms of suicide programmes from this Government, is at least half full, and it is about time some members recognised it.

Darien Fenton: What reports has the Minister received on the strength of the mental health workforce?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I have received reports that the number of specialist psychiatrists and mental health nurses has grown by 26 percent since the election of this Government. There are now nearly 900 more mental health nurses working in our public health system than before 1999. That is what a Government can achieve when we invest in the health of our families instead of throwing money at reckless tax reductions.

Barbara Stewart: How does the Minister plan to address the chronic staff shortages for adolescent patients within the mental health sector?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: For a very long time—going back at least 20 or more years, and probably longer than that—the mental health system has been the Cinderella of the health system in New Zealand. That is true. And it has been difficult to obtain and train the skills we need, both at a psychiatric professional level and at a mental health nurses level. But as I have just said, this Government has made a greater step forward in the mental health system probably in the living memory of anyone in this House, and it is about time that that was acknowledged, at least for the truth that it is.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: How can the public have any real confidence in the Government’s ability to deal with the increase in attempted suicides when the Government response to the latest suicide statistics is to issue a press release that announces a plan to set up a task force to oversee an action plan to implement a strategy to release a detailed plan? [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: We will wait until we can hear the answer.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: When in Opposition in this Parliament to the then National Government, I had the opportunity to ask the then Minister of Health for proper processes and budgets for a prevention of suicide strategy. Not one single dollar was available for that. This Government has put millions of dollars into it. If the member wants to investigate the facts of that I will be happy to educate him, because he is a relative newcomer here and he does not have a clue about the history of this issue.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: How can the public have any confidence that this Government is up to the task of improving the mental health of New Zealanders when the specifically listed action for promotion and prevention in the Government’s new 10-year mental health plan is to spend 3 years reviewing the strategic framework to develop a new framework to develop a plan to set out a strategy, and is this not just more plans, strategies, and waffle that will not impact on mental health rates at all?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: This Government has invested $1,000 million additional funding in mental health; it has opened up resources and facilities all around the country for the young and not-so-young people affected; it has more staff professionally trained for the mental health system; and it has taken mental health into the public arena in terms of private general practice and the hospital system of New Zealand. It has done more for mental health than the National Party in its whole history in Government ever did, and it is about time that the member, who was a professional clinician, understood the reality of that. I am sure that he does and that he is making cheap political points in this House that do him no credit.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: How can we have any confidence in the 10-year mental health plan when we have cases such as that of Peter Waihape, who had a long history of involvement with mental health services, who abducted and raped a woman, who then approached a number of mental health agencies in Christchurch, at least one of which he told what he had done, to be sent away, only to then kill a woman by repeatedly running over her in his car?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: There is no one in this House or in New Zealand who would be satisfied with that kind of situation—of course. But I say to the member, who is a professional doctor, that he well knows that mental health patients are more likely to be victims than perpetrators of crime. If he recognised the reality of that, which is absolutely shown by all the statistics that I know, and I am sure he does too, he would pay more attention to clinical evidence than talkback shows, which is where he gets that kind of information.

Dr Jackie Blue: How is the 10-year plan going to address the critical shortage of New Zealand - trained rather than imported psychiatrists when fewer than 50 percent of our psychiatrists actually trained in New Zealand, and when it is well known that mental health workers should have a knowledge of our unique culture in order to be effective?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: There is no question that the provision of professionally trained psychiatrists has been of significant difficulty for this country. But let me say—and I am sure the member knows—that it is of significant difficulty for every country in the world. One thing I do know is that the Government will have to put more funding into mental health and into the training of professional psychiatrists. That will not happen under parties that promise tax cuts to the richest New Zealanders, when Government expenditure is part and parcel of the answer.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: I seek leave to table documents showing an increase in hospitalisations for attempted suicide.

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

Dr Jonathan Coleman: I seek leave to table a press release announcing the plan to set up the task force to oversee the plan to implement the strategy to release the detail of that.

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

Trans-Tasman Business—Mergers

11. MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce: What reports, if any, has she received on the rules governing mergers that relate to trans-Tasman businesses?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): Last week the chairs of the New Zealand Commerce Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission reached agreement on a protocol to enhance cooperation when dealing with trans-Tasman business mergers. The outcomes of the protocol are expected to synchronise the timing of mergers, the sharing of information, and the sharing of agency analysis and assessment of transactions—more good news for business under a Labour-led Government.

Maryan Street: What alternative approaches has she seen to promoting trans-Tasman businesses?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I have seen reports of an approach based on travelling to Australia to criticise New Zealand and Australian newspapers. I have also seen a report that suggests that making comments in foreign newspapers that could jeopardise New Zealand trade is a form of treason. I do not support either of those approaches of Dr Don Brash.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that those arrangements are being put in place to facilitate the reverse takeover of Air New Zealand by Qantas?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: No.

Gordon Copeland: Does the Minister have concerns around the ability of New Zealand businesses to compete in the trans-Tasman market, and is she confident that the business tax review will make a positive difference in this regard; if so, how?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Despite some commentary that suggests that doing business in Australia is easier than doing business in New Zealand, trans-Tasman companies know that is not the case. When components of the business tax review are implemented, doing business in New Zealand will be even easier. For example, New Zealand firms do not pay payroll taxes, compulsory superannuation, or stamp duties on property sales—the list goes on.

Question No. 12 to Minister

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to hold question No. 12 over to the next sitting day so that the Minister of Māori Affairs has time to be here.

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

School Curriculum—Treaty of Waitangi

12. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: What advice, if any, has he received—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. A couple of days ago I was removed from this House—I still do not know why. [Interruption] Here we go again. That is the second example. When I was asking my question the Deputy Prime Minister said something. We have been told by you that we have to play the game according to the Standing Orders. Hopefully, on this very occasion, you will ask the Deputy Prime Minister to remove himself from the Chamber for that infraction.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I withdraw and apologise for the comment, which was somewhat unseemly. But, in fact, Madam Speaker, you ruled the other day that the rules on question time have slightly changed.

Madam SPEAKER: Exactly. I shall give the member a copy of my ruling. I am not sure if he was in the Chamber when I made it.

Hon Tau Henare: Rules for some and rules for others.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry; would the member please withdraw and apologise. I made a lengthy statement upon which there was a considerable amount of discussion on this point. So would the member please withdraw and apologise for the comment he made about the Speaker.

Hon Tau Henare: I just did.

Madam SPEAKER: I did not hear it. Would you please do it.

Hon Tau Henare: I withdraw and apologise. What advice, if any, has the Minister of Māori Affairs received from his Ministry on—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Members are allowed to chatter; they do it all the time.

Hon Tau Henare: Oh well; that is fine. I cannot wait until the next question time on the next sitting day. What advice, if any, has he received from his ministry on the effect of removing reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in the draft New Zealand school curriculum?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Māori Affairs: None. The responsibility for the draft curriculum lies with the Minister of Education.

Hon Tau Henare: What does the Treaty principle of participation, as identified by the Minister on 1 August as being enhanced in the curriculum programme, mean in relation to the formulation of the school curriculum?

Hon Steve Maharey: Within the Education Act, the principles are set out. Within the national education goals, the principles are set out. And they are articulated in this particular version of the curriculum by a commitment to things Māori and to people being able to address a bicultural society and be able to live as a Māori within the education system. A good expression of that will be the rewriting of the draft curriculum into the Māori medium and it being consulted on next year.

Dave Hereora: What is the Government doing to support educational success for Māori?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Quite a bit, but I will restrict myself to the following. The Minister is working with Māori communities through the Hui Taumata Mātauranga process. The first Māori curriculum is being developed and will be consulted on next year. An amount of $26 million a year is being put into support for the full range of te reo Māori learning. As a result, more Māori students are achieving qualifications under the National Certificate of Educational Achievement, more Māori are moving on to tertiary study, and more Māori are getting jobs.

Pita Paraone: How is the education of New Zealanders affected by the fact that the Education Act 1989 contains no reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: On behalf of the Minister of Māori Affairs, I point to the fact that since 1989 there have been quite significant educational gains for Māori. There are a whole host of reasons for that during that period of time. I would note that since 1999 those results have significantly improved again, and they are tracking up in a way that would get the approval of most people in this Chamber. I point to the policies that have been put in place since 1999.

Hon Tau Henare: What other principles of the Treaty of Waitangi have his ministry identified, and if there are other principles then which ones does his ministry use in order to ensure that other departments and agencies are providing adequate services for Māori, as required under section 5 of the Ministry of Maori Development Act 1991?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I refer the member to section 181 of the Act, for example, which applies to tertiary councils. It simply places a duty on the council of the institution to perform its function and exercise its powers in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles—things like encouraging the greatest possible participation by the communities served by the institution so as to maximise the educational potential of all members of those communities, under-represented groups, etc. No discrimination works its way through those kinds of principles, and Te Puni Kōkiri’s role is to ensure that that is carried out right across all areas of education.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am seeking a bit of clarification. The Minister referred to the Acts. I am not sure whether he was referring to the Ministry of Maori Development Act 1991 or the Education Act

Madam SPEAKER: The Education Act.

Hone Harawira: Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou te Whare. Could the Minister of Māori Affairs please tell the House how he can justify a comment he made in response to a question from my colleague Mr Flavell on Tuesday, that removal of the Treaty from the curriculum can enhance the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, when he has just voted to delete the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think the member is referring to the sending of a bill on that topic to a select committee. I made it clear myself that that would not result in a vote on further stages of the bill. Can I just say to the member that if he looks at the Act he will find the principles of the Treaty there. He will find them in the National Education Goals. This is not the same curriculum with bits removed. This is seven volumes of what was a very prescriptive curriculum, now being written as one slim volume, where things to do with the Treaty and to do with Māori, and to do with arts for that matter, are right through it in a way that that member would probably expect them to be.

Hon Tau Henare: What evidence can he provide to this House that Te Puni Kōkiri maintains rigorous standards when meeting its statutory obligations under section 5 of the Ministry of Maori Development Act 1991, and does he believe that monitoring other Government departments is also one of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: On behalf of the Minister of Māori Affairs, I say that the best evidence I can give is that the Maori Development Act of 1991 gives Te Puni Kōkiri responsibility to liaise with, and monitor, other Government departments, in respect of their responsiveness to Māori. As part of that, and to take an example, the ministry works with the Ministry of Education to effect positive educational outcomes. Examples of that work would be the development of the Māori medium curriculum, the tripartite relationship between Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Education, and the Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust. I understand the member was a member of the Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust board and would therefore know that.

Hon Tau Henare: Does Te Puni Kōkiri have a list of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; if so, what are they and where could one get a copy of them?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: On behalf of the Minister of Māori Affairs, my understanding is that the Minister’s department does have access to the principles. They have been repeated ad nauseam in court cases throughout the last little while, including when there was a National Government, so I am sure the member will find it easier to access them.

Hon Tau Henare: Could the Minister tell the House exactly what are the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: On behalf of the Minister of Māori Affairs, I say that the first two, if I remember rightly, concern participation. As I say, the member can easily get hold of them.

Questions to Members

Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill—Purpose

1. PAULA BENNETT (National) to the Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill: Who is the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill intended to help?

Dr WAYNE MAPP (Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill): The bill is particularly designed to help young people to get their first job—especially Māori youth, who have an unemployment rate of 26.9 percent for those aged 15 to 19. It is also intended to help migrants. I am sure that Thai painters would value being treated as employees, because they would be entitled to minimum wages.

Paula Bennett: Why does the current legislation not work?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: The current law makes it much harder for employers to take a chance on new employees, especially if they do not have a work history. But of course there are protections, including those for sick leave, holiday pay, anti-discrimination provisions, and minimum wages—all of which, of course, would have been appreciated by Thai painters.

Peter Brown: Noting those answers, has the member any solid evidence that suggests the potential employees he wishes to assist want this legislative type of assistance; if so, will he produce it?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: There are literally hundreds of submissions before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which in many cases I have read. They indicate that smaller employers especially want to have the legislation so they can give a chance to new employees—to take the risk when they otherwise would not do so.

Darien Fenton: I seek leave to table a report where National MP Paula Bennett expressed her concern regarding the fate of workers who could be dismissed for refusing to undertake unsafe work, should her colleague Dr Wayne Mapp’s Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill become law.

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

Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill—Small Business Advisory Group

2. CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) to the Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill: How does the probationary employment period established in the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill compare with the view of the Small Business Advisory Group on the importance of probationary employment periods?

Dr WAYNE MAPP (Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill): The Small Business Advisory Group, which reports directly to this current Government, stated in recommendation 19 that a grievance-free probationary period was the single most important measure to reform New Zealand’s employment laws to enable them to boost employment, growth, and productivity.

Chris Tremain: What reports has the member seen regarding actions taken by the Government in response to the much-advocated Small Business Advisory Group’s strong recommendation for a probationary employment period?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am afraid that questions to a member must be in relation to a matter the member is in charge of. The member is not responsible for the Government’s actions.

Madam SPEAKER: Precisely.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question was in relation to any reports I have received. That, surely, is within order, because it stems directly from the primary question.

Madam SPEAKER: The question has to relate to the bill. If the member would like to rephrase his question so that it relates to the bill only—which is what the member is responsible for—I will take it.

Chris Tremain: What reports has the member, seen in relation to his bill, regarding the actions taken by the Government in response to the much-advocated Small Business Advisory Group’s strong recommendation for a probationary employment period?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am afraid that the member still has not managed to rephrase the question to avoid the issue raised in the first point of order on the first supplementary question.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Chris Tremain was very careful to refer to reports in respect of my colleague’s bill. I draw to the attention of the House that almost every single day I hear questions to Ministers about what this National MP might have said or what the good Leader of the Opposition might have said. Provided that members ask about what reports the Ministers have received—despite the fact that the topic may be way beyond their responsibility—you have ruled that that is allowed. If it is good enough for a Minister in charge of a portfolio to be able to comment on reports from National members, surely it is possible for Wayne Mapp to be asked what reports he has received, in relation to his bill, about what the Government has done in response to the Small Business Advisory Group.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the members for their contribution. Members can, of course, under the Standing Orders put questions to non-Ministers, but these are very narrowly based, unlike questions to Ministers. If members want to ask such questions, they must bring themselves within the Standing Orders. I will move on to question No. 3. [Interruption] No, I have moved on to question No. 3.

Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill—OECD Comparisons

3. NATHAN GUY (National) to the Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill: How does the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill compare to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries’ practice of probationary employment periods?

Dr WAYNE MAPP (Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill): The bill falls fair and square within the standard practice of the OECD. Every OECD country has a probation period; it is seen as critical to getting people into the workforce. This bill brings New Zealand into conformity with the rest of the OECD, which has far higher productivity than this country does.

Nathan Guy: What is the typical length of probationary periods in the OECD countries?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: In the United Kingdom the length of the probation period is 12 months—

Hon Tony Ryall: Under Tony Blair?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Under Tony Blair it is 12 months. In Australia it is 6 months. Throughout most of Western Europe—which, of course, the Government has a certain fondness for—the time is typically 3 months. Three months is, in fact, a conservative and modest measure. One must ask the question whether Mr Field would last 3 months.

Madam SPEAKER: I ask the member to withdraw that last comment. We are trying to comply with the Standing Orders, as I understand it.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I withdraw the comment.

Hon Mark Gosche: Will the member be taking the advice of his colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson, who said that any decent employer would know whether a worker was up to standard within the first 9 days, and removing the nought from his probationary bill so that a probationary period of 9 days is the standard, as his colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson advised; or will he follow the advice of Bob Clarkson, who said it should really only take a week, and make it a 7-day probationary period instead?

Bob Clarkson: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am a little bit concerned. Was that not privileged information?

Madam SPEAKER: Was it when submissions were being heard? [Interruption] Was it part of a submission? [Interruption] Well, this is what happens with questions to members.

David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Hon Mark Gosche said he could not get his caucus to agree to at least a 7-day—

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Throughout the developed world there is, in fact, a complete range of probation periods. The country that the Government is most fond of—the United Kingdom—actually has a 12-month probation period. I have taken a very conservative approach of a 3-month probation period because, of course, different jobs have different requirements and different times to measure whether someone is up to the job.

Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table the latest OECD survey, which ranks New Zealand’s economy a commendable fourth out of 155 OECD countries for the ease of employers starting or ending an employment relationship.

Leave granted.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It seems that your ruling on that last answer was that the member was addressing the question, even though he clearly did not answer it to the satisfaction of the member asking the question.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I take the point. It was a broad answer, but he addressed the question.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I seek leave to table the 2006 report of the Small Business Advisory Group to the Government. In relation to recommendation 19, which refers to personal grievance - free probation periods, it has scored the Government zero out of 10.

Leave granted.

Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill—Submissions

4. JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) to the Chairperson of the Health Committee: How many submissions have been received on the Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill?

SUE KEDGLEY (Chairperson of the Health Committee): The Health Committee has received 41 submissions on the Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill.

Madam SPEAKER: This is the last supplementary question.

Dr Jackie Blue: How will the Health Committee’s busy schedule accommodate the hearing of submissions on this bill?

SUE KEDGLEY: The Health Committee does have a busy schedule, as we are in the middle of hearing our inquiry into the obesity and type 2 diabetes epidemics in New Zealand, and we have 12 petitions before us. However, we are hoping to hear submissions on the member’s bill in October. I might add that, despite the Health Committee’s busy schedule, we are always keen to have briefings from Ministers, and we are looking forward to a briefing from the Minister of State Services, who declined to appear before our committee during the estimates hearings to brief us on the Trans-Tasman therapeutic goods agency.

Question No. 5 to Member

Question, by leave, postponed.

Question Time

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have made a couple of comments during questions to members about the number of supplementaries, the way in which questions can be asked, the narrowness of some of those questions, and other such remarks. The Standing Orders do not differentiate substantially in any way at all between questions to Ministers and questions to members. In fact, a section of the Standing Orders deals with questions to Ministers and members. Having stated who they are and in what circumstances those questions would be answered, all of the Standing Orders are then applied, it would seem, to both types of question.

I do not detect anywhere in the Standing Orders where it states that, should a chairperson of a select committee not be present in the House, a question cannot be answered by another member—presumably, the deputy chairperson of that select committee. If, in fact, the ruling you have given is correct, where do we go in the Standing Orders to have that ruling backed up? If it is a Speaker’s ruling, I cannot find in Speakers’ Rulings either where that particular requirement is set down.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): There would appear to be no reason in principle why the deputy chairperson of a select committee cannot answer a question when the member who chairs the committee is absent. I refer you, Madam Speaker, to Standing Order 203, which addresses the issue of the absence of the chairperson. It provides that in the absence of a chairperson from a meeting and so on, the deputy chairperson may step into the place of the chairperson.

The issue is whether a meeting of Parliament is a sitting or whether it can also be a meeting. I refer you to Standing Order 12 for some guidance, because it refers to “Proceedings on meeting of new Parliament”. So there would seem to be no reason in principle why Standing Order 203 could not be interpreted to include not only a meeting of a select committee but also a meeting of Parliament. That is the principal reason why—

Madam SPEAKER: No, I thank the member; I have heard enough. I have noticed a growing practice of questions to members, which is perfectly in order. Therefore, I think it is appropriate that I give a ruling on these matters. I will take that under advisement and give a ruling.

Paula Bennett: So can’t he ask his question?

Madam SPEAKER: No. Obviously, the member did not understand what I have just said. I have ruled that I will consider it. My ruling is “no”. It is consistent with my understanding of the Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings. The members have raised the issue, I will take it under advisement, and I will rule. We will now move on to Government orders of the day Nos 1 and 2.

Hon Member: So be it.

Madam SPEAKER: So be it. Thank you.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is the first point of order I have raised in my time in this place and I have tried to be as succinct as possible. You, kindly, are going to give the House a considered ruling, which I think would be most helpful, but would it not be helpful if you heard the rest of my submission on the point, so that you have a full appreciation of the arguments on behalf of the Opposition?

Madam SPEAKER: No, I think the member was totally clear, and I thank him for the succinctness of his arguments. I understand the point that he is making.

ENDS

© Scoop Media