Thursday, 1 March 2007
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers

1. Court Fines—Remission
2. Office of Treaty Settlements—Whenuakite Station
3. Taxation—OECD Comparisons of Personal Tax
4. Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Policy
5. Office of Treaty Settlements—Advice
6. Legal Aid—Access to Justice
Question Time
7. Carbon Footprint—Reduction
8. Ingram Report—Associate Minister of Immigration
9. Aviation Security—New Measures
10. Small Business Advisory Group—Recommendations
11. Police—Technical Offences
12. Auckland—Development Plans

Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers

Court Fines—Remission

1. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister for Courts: Is he satisfied with the number of fines being remitted by the courts; if so, why?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts): I have no control over the number of fines that are remitted by the courts. The decision to remit fines is made by members of the judiciary, who are best placed to make such decisions. Judges use the information they have in front of them at the time and base their decisions upon whether it is beneficial to impose an alternative sentence upon the offender before the court, or to continue to pursue the outstanding fines for their balance. I am confident that judges make the best decisions on the information available to them.

Ron Mark: Is the Minister satisfied that fines are proving to be an effective deterrent; if so, how does he reconcile that with the fact that more than 7,050 people have had multiple agglomerations of fines excused by the courts in the past 5 years?

Hon RICK BARKER: I do know that the courts have taken this matter very seriously. I can tell the member that although the number of fines being remitted in that period is quite large, the number of people who are being sentenced to prison as an alternative to that has grown quite considerably. In 2002-03, 140 people had imprisonment as an alternative sentence; in 2005-06, the number was 293. This shows a certain toughening of the courts’ attitude towards fines.

Martin Gallagher: Further to the Minister’s previous answer, can he outline what reports he has seen personally on the improved collection of fines?

Hon RICK BARKER: I have seen a report that states that the courts have collected $206.9 million in outstanding fines for the 2005-06 year. This is an increase of 82 percent on the 2001-02 figure of $113.4 million. The report goes on to state that the proportion of fines that were overdue in 2001-02 was a high 79 percent. This figure has been reduced to 54 percent in 2005-06. I have also seen a report that states that the courts have collected over $10 million in 2004, 2005, and 2006 from the confiscated car club. The court staff are doing a very good job in collecting fines and outstanding fines.

Simon Power: When will he just admit that recent figures show that 184,572 people owe fines that are over 5 years old—which confirms the fact that he is totally hopeless as the Minister for Courts?

Hon RICK BARKER: I would say that the problem for part of that lies entirely with the previous National Government and its incompetent management of this matter. It has come to my attention as the Minister for Courts that issuing authorities, such as local authorities and the police, very often have issued fines with no name attached to them or with no address. This makes it utterly impossible for the court staff to collect the fines. The Courts and Criminal Matters Bill now makes it very clear that issuing authorities will have to have a minimum subset of information that makes it possible to collect the fines. This is in part a large legacy issue from the incompetence of the previous National Government.

Ron Mark: How can the public have any confidence in a fines system when only half of the criminals who have had fine groupings pardoned have had an alternative sentence imposed, and why are these fines being imposed in the first place if there is no intention of enforcing the payment and only, it would seem, an intention for judges to pardon and excuse the non-payment of those fines?

Hon RICK BARKER: I draw the member’s attention to the figures I gave before, which showed that in the year 2005-06 the courts had collected $206 million in fines, as compared with $113 million in 2001-02. So it is a doubling of the amount. The other point I would draw to the member’s attention is—as I said earlier—that the number of sentences in lieu of outstanding fines has climbed from 140 to 293, and that the number of attachment orders being put on offenders has gone up dramatically, as well.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could help me, Madam Speaker. In my primary question, I asked the Minister about remitted fines, and in my subsequent supplementary questions, I have asked the Minister only about remitted fines—that is, fines that the judge has “pardoned”—and I have used that word. In all of the answers he has given thus far, he has made no comment about that precise issue, which is clearly stated in the primary question. Madam Speaker, I would ask you to ask him whether he could expand, or at least comment, on the number of fines that judges are pardoning.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister did address the question, but if he wanted to add anything more to it he may. No, he does not.

Simon Power: When will the Minister just admit that recent figures showing that eight people have a total of 2,494 separate outstanding fines between them confirms that he is utterly hopeless as the Minister for Courts?

Hon RICK BARKER: The answer to the question is simple. Courts do not impose fines themselves. Courts have fines forwarded to them by the issuing authorities—that is, the police or local territorial authorities—that have failed to collect them themselves. The court staff have increased the amount of money that is collected by fines—

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, but would the Minister please be seated. It is very difficult to hear with the chipping in. Members want Ministers to address the questions. When they are endeavouring to do so we should give them the courtesy of enabling them to be heard.

Hon RICK BARKER: I was making the point that the issuing authorities issue the fines, not the courts—that is, territorial authorities, Government agencies, and the police. That is who decides to issue fines. When those authorities cannot collect the fines themselves they hand them on to the courts. Every indicator shows that the courts are being more rigorous and are collecting more fines—

Hon Tony Ryall: Oh, rubbish!

Hon RICK BARKER: I can tell Mr Ryall that the figures show that clearly. Just to show members how effective the system is being, I can tell them that in 2001-02 there were 41,000 attachment orders on people’s pay; in 2005-06 there 203,208, which is a fivefold increase. We are collecting more money; less is outstanding.

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In asking my question of the Minister I did not ask him who fined who. I simply asked him what he was going to do about the eight people who, between them, owed $2,900-odd in separate fines. He has not addressed that specific issue.

Hon RICK BARKER: In relation to a number of people who have substantial amounts of fines outstanding, the courts have organised a small team to concentrate specifically on those people, as well as collecting hundreds of millions of dollars in fines from the general public.

Ron Mark: If the Minister expects the public to believe that the fines system is working and that pardoning multiple groupings of fines for individuals—in fact, for more than 117 people per month—is proving effective, how does he explain that there is someone out there who has had more than 10 groupings of fines excused by the courts in the past 5 years?

Hon RICK BARKER: The member is referring to a question he put down to me for written answer. He will be surprised, as I was, to find that the individual with the number between 10 and 20 is, in fact, “name unknown”. The court staff simply collated the number of fines for which there was no name on the fine but which the issuing authority had forwarded to the courts to collect. I think everybody would accept that it is impossible to collect a fine without a name of a person on it. Court staff should have identified that in a separate category. I found it frustrating to find this out 5 minutes before the House.

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to table a document that shows that 5,539 offenders have had two groups of fines remitted—that is, pardoned—between January 2002 and December 2006.

Leave granted.

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to table a document that shows that, in total, 7,054 people have had more than one grouping of fines pardoned by the courts.

Leave granted.

Office of Treaty Settlements—Whenuakite Station

2. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Why did the Office of Treaty Settlements reject Landcorp’s offer of the land at Whenuakite Station?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Because it applies the criteria that it has consistently applied since the mid-1990s, when the relevant processes were put in place by that member’s Government.

Hon Bill English: Is this Landcorp farm now available for a Treaty settlement with Hauraki iwi, after the announcement the Government made yesterday?

Hon MARK BURTON: The Government is not yet in negotiation with Hauraki iwi. When it is, then the same process will be applied to the availability of land and other forms of redress as is always applied.

Hon Bill English: Does that mean that the Government is going to stick to its Crown policy, which is, according to the Minister, that Landcorp properties are generally not available for use in settlement; if it plans to stick to that policy, why did it make an announcement yesterday to give the impression that somehow it will make the property available to the claimants?

Hon MARK BURTON: The member is confusing two quite different things. One is that the Government’s announcement yesterday by another Minister, the Minister for State Owned Enterprises, quite properly dealt with the general issue of disposal or retention of lands. As to the question of land disposal or land availability for Treaty settlements, the situation remains the same. Such land is always potentially available. It has generally not been the first preference of successive Ministers and Governments, because other easily available means of redress exist. However, as I have said to the member, the land still remains potentially available.

Hon Bill English: Was the Crown not showing bad faith in the settlement process when it made an announcement yesterday about a review of Landcorp’s sales process that focused on subdivision, public access, and heritage and had nothing to do with Treaty settlements, and made that announcement to give the impression to Hauraki iwi that this farm might be available for settlement, when in fact the Crown does not intend changing its policy at all?

Hon MARK BURTON: The member, clearly, is utterly confused. It is entirely appropriate that the Minister for State Owned Enterprises made an announcement about the Government’s wider policies as they relate to his portfolio. Equally, it is appropriate that I engaged with Hauraki iwi, even though we are not in formal negotiations yet. And I repeat for the member, who clearly did not hear it the first time, that the policy has always had such land available to it. That has not changed, because the land is available and always has been.

Hon Bill English: What confidence can anyone—any New Zealander, including any Treaty claimant—have in the Government’s Treaty settlement process, when a small group has occupied this land, precipitated a Government U-turn on its policy—

Hon Member: Led by a Tory candidate.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should not have to shout over interjections to have my question heard.

Madam SPEAKER: The member is quite right. I have noticed an increasing pattern from those members on either side of the House sitting near the Chair. There are loud individual interjections constantly when members are trying to ask a question. So would members please desist, otherwise they will be removed from the Chamber. Would the member please start his question again.

Hon Bill English: What confidence can any New Zealander or any Treaty claimant have in the Government’s process, when it does a U-turn in response to a bit of pressure from one of the claimants, announces a major review, and sets out to change the whole system?

Hon MARK BURTON: That simply is not the case. But if that member is suggesting that no Minister should ever listen to the submissions of New Zealanders, then I guess that marks out the difference between that member and this Government.

Hon Bill English: What responsibility does that Minister take for the growing Māori dissatisfaction with the slow pace and inflexibility of the Treaty settlement process; and does not his administration of it contradict the Government’s stated policy that it wants to speed up the process?

Hon MARK BURTON: The member’s assertions simply are not correct. The fact that one Tory candidate acts as a spokesperson whilst I am actually in discussions with a group of actual negotiators and actual representatives, does not make it the case. The fact is, more current live negotiations are taking place than at any time since this process began. More negotiations are in process, covering more claims, than ever before. The number of milestones reached is greater than ever before.

Hon Bill English: Given the Minister’s previous answers that something has changed and that nothing has changed, can he tell the House right now what has changed in respect of the Whenuakite farm as a result of the announcement yesterday?

Hon MARK BURTON: As a result of the announcement yesterday, it is my understanding that the board of Landcorp has advised the Minister for State Owned Enterprises that it will take no action for a month whilst the Government conducts a first tier of work. That is what is happening.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Can the Minister confirm that the person who is leading the occupation at Whenuakite is the person nominated by the leader of the National Party to be a member of the boundaries commission?

Hon MARK BURTON: Yes, indeed I can confirm that fact.

Taxation—OECD Comparisons of Personal Tax

3. SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on how New Zealand ranks in the OECD for personal taxation on the average family?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I am sure the member will be encouraged to continue asking such brilliant questions by the applause from members opposite. I am not sure they will welcome the answer quite as much. I received a report Taxing Wages Report 2006 from the OECD, which shows that for a single-income family with two children on the average full-time wage, New Zealand has the second-lowest tax wedge in the OECD at 2.9 percent, compared with the OECD average of 27.5 percent.

Shane Jones: Is the Government introducing any changes that will affect the tax wedge on average families?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Indeed we are. In just exactly 1 month, the Working for Families tax credits will be extended by $10 per week per child, across the board. That will reduce the tax—

Hon Member: More welfare!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Ah, “More welfare!”, says the member Dr Nick Smith. I invite him to go and tell that to the families who will be receiving it. That will reduce the tax wedge for an average family to close to zero. It will play a significant role in reducing child poverty, and that tax relief, like the tax cuts on savings and investments passed last year, is opposed by the National Party.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister recall the Government committing itself some years ago to lifting the incomes of New Zealand families into the top half of those in the OECD, and can he confirm that the reason he stopped talking about that goal is that they were was slipping back, not rising?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, the Government has committed itself over the long term to be in the top half of the OECD in terms of per capita GDP. However, it is not the only measure that this Government has, because, of course, one could be in the top half by having a very small number of extremely wealthy people and a lot of poor people—what some people have discovered is called an underclass, in the technical language. This Government also believes in making sure that the average Kiwi battler family is better treated, comparatively, than similar families even in Australia—which the National Party opposed at every point.

Gordon Copeland: Is the Minister aware that income splitting would further reduce personal taxation, especially for average single-income families; if so, should the New Zealand Government not follow the lead of the Canadian Government, which may introduce income splitting as early as this year’s Budget on 19 March?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There is to be a discussion about that matter before the next election—and, indeed, a discussion document that Mr Dunne and I will be working on. I do have to point out that now, for the average single-income family with two children, the net tax owing is almost zero after Working for Families is taken into account. It is hard, by splitting incomes, to get much below that level.

Heather Roy: What will the Government do to restore Kiwis’ trust in Parliament and the public service, given that the OECD report Society at a Glance showed that the level of trust in this Parliament ranks third from the bottom of that in the OECD countries, ahead of only that in South Korea and the Czech Republic?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I thank the member for that patsy question. That survey was taken in the years 1994 to 1999, when a National Government was in office.

Gordon Copeland: I seek the leave of the House to table a document that shows that, according to polls, income splitting is supported by 77 percent of all Canadians.

Leave granted.

Gordon Copeland: I seek the leave of the House to table a document that quotes the Finance Minister of Canada as saying that income splitting is an item on the table for Canada’s 19 March Budget.

Leave granted.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Policy

4. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement to parents broadcast on 24 January 2007: “if you’re a parent and you’re watching this very simple, your child’s 3 to 4, you go down to the local centre, enrol, say my child’s here for these 20 hours, that’s all you do”; if so, why?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister of Education: That sort of mangled English is more like something my predecessor would have said than my normally erudite approach, but yes.

Katherine Rich: So, come 1 July, what happens next if a parent who watched the Minister goes down to the local centre and says: “My child’s 3 to 4. I’m here for my 20 free hours. That’s all I do.”, and staff at the centre say: “Sorry, it’s not on offer.”; what is the Minister’s advice to the tens of thousands of parents who will be disappointed?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The early childhood education centres that are fully staffed with registered staff and that choose not to take the $92 a week deduction for the 20 hours will, I think, be very few. Parents will put pressure on those centres to take it.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Has the Minister received any reports about anyone being confused about the rules of 20 hours’ free early childhood education?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I apologise in advance for the length of the answer to that supplementary question. Yes, that person quoted half a sentence from the Ministry of Education handbook on 20 hours’ free early childhood education, claiming that the rules allow centres to refuse to enrol children whose parents do not wish to pay optional charges. Section 4.3 of the handbook clearly explains the use of optional charges. An optional charge is a request for a contribution that parents may choose whether or not to make. There will be no penalty for parents who choose to not make the contribution. It also explains that the optional charge may be enforced only once a parent has agreed to pay it. The Opposition spokesperson on education seemed to be confused about that in the House on Tuesday. If she had read the whole sentence from the handbook, rather than half the sentence, she would not have been confused. I will give her a bit of generosity and say she did it accidentally and cannot read well, because otherwise she would have been misleading Parliament.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Does the Minister agree that the real beneficiaries of this policy will be those 3 and 4-year-olds who at present receive no early childhood education experience, at all—including 17.2 percent of those who go on to decile 1 schools; can he also confirm that $14.45 million has been set aside to provide a learning accommodation for those children under the 20 free hours’ early childhood education policy?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I will take the member’s word on the second part of the question; I could get the additional information, but because I am acting on the Minister’s behalf in the House, I cannot confirm that. I agree that it will be very good to have that increased number of children receiving early childhood education, but a $92 per week discount, on average, for parents for the early childhood education of their kids is not bad for families, either.

Katherine Rich: Is the House to understand that the policy is now not about offering 20 free hours’ early childhood education but about offering a discount, as the Minister has just described it?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, the only person who thinks that is the member opposite. What I said was, on average, parents will be saving $92 per week, through getting free early childhood education. For members of a party that opposes that and wants to add $92 per week on to the bills of parents of 3 and 4-year-olds, as members opposite do, they are trying to defend free early childhood education a bit hard.

Katherine Rich: Does the Minister understand what he has just done in shifting the description of the policy from one of being 20 free hours’ early childhood education to one of being a discount, when the Minister has studiously avoided the word “subsidy” previously; if so, does he now admit it is a discount?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: One can have a 100 percent discount—it will be free. What part of that does the member not understand? It will be free for 3 and 4-year-olds in the centres that are offering it. My bet is that over a period of time just about every centre will offer it, because why would a parent use a centre that is, on average, $92 per week more expensive than the one next door to it?

Katherine Rich: What would the Minister’s reaction be if the Auckland Kindergarten Association—an association that oversees 107 kindergartens in Auckland—announces that it will not be implementing the 20 free hours’ early childhood education policy, because by accepting it they will be worse off?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have not consulted with the Minister on that, but I can say from my experience that it would be one of disbelief. Generally the people involved in running the Auckland Kindergarten Association have been bright people, and they are people who know that getting this additional amount of money—and a lot more going forward—is in the interests of the parents represented by that association. I am sure that the good people who run the Auckland Kindergarten Association are not prepared to sacrifice a very large amount of funding next year, and even more the year after that.

Katherine Rich: Can we take it from the Minister’s last statement that he is going to threaten centres if they do not take up this offer—and can he explain to the House, why the Auckland Kindergarten Association should implement the policy of 20 free hours if it will get less money overall, per child, per hour, than it gets now?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No.

Office of Treaty Settlements—Advice

5. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Kua ea tōna hiahia ki ngā tohutohu a te Tari Whakatau Take e pā ana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi; meinā kāre, he aha ai?

[Is he satisfied with the advice provided by the Office of Treaty Settlements; if not, why not?]

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Generally, yes, because they are hard-working and conscientious officials.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Kia ora anō tātou. What explanation can the Minister give for the fact that when asked about the repossession that began on Sunday at Whenuakite Station the Prime Minister responded on Monday by saying: “I haven’t had any briefing on that one, at all.”, and that statement was used in the New Zealand Herald this morning; and would he not agree that the early warning of such action falls within the core functions of the Office of Treaty Settlements to “Advise on the acquisition, management, transfer and disposal of Crown-owned property for Treaty claim purposes.”?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I think the member is aware, there is not yet a mandated negotiation in process, so the section that the member quotes does not seem to me to apply to that case. In any event, the Office of Treaty Settlements provided appropriate advice to the appropriate people.

Hone Harawira: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou i te Whare. Is the Minister willing to formally apologise to the properly mandated negotiators for Ngāti Kahu and Hauraki for the monstrous cock-up caused by the lack of clear communication between various Government agencies and their Ministers, and for the harm caused to those negotiators and their whānau, hapū, and iwi by the insensitive and arrogant manner in which he lent tacit approval to Landcorp, offering for sale to the highest bidder lands that should properly have been made available for Treaty settlement?

Hon MARK BURTON: I do not accept the assertions in the member’s question, and, certainly, some of those assertions are factually incorrect.

Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Does the Minister not accepting assertions mean that he addressed the question, because he did address it or answer it, at all?

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, he addressed the question.

Hone Harawira: Shall I read it again?

Madam SPEAKER: No, the Minister has addressed the question.

Christopher Finlayson: Is the real problem not so much the quality of the advice tendered by the Office of Treaty Settlements but the Minister’s capacity to understand that advice?

Hon MARK BURTON: No, that, too, is not factually correct.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Has the Minister read comments from Landcorp Chairman, Mr Jim Sutton, that the Crown entity was the “meat in the sandwich” in relation to Hauraki Māori concerns about a prime block of Coromandel land, and that “There is obviously a claim on this land that we were not aware of. Had we been aware of it, of course we would have been trying to persuade the Office of Treaty Settlements to purchase it.”; and would he not have considered it to be the role of the Office of Treaty Settlements to advise Landcorp accordingly.

Hon MARK BURTON: Yes, I have seen those comments; I think it is the role of Landcorp to make decisions based on its obligations, and it is the role of the Office of Treaty Settlements to make decisions and provide advice according to its mandate.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm to the House today whether it is the case that Landcorp properties such as this one will now be available for Treaty settlements, and that the Government has changed its mind because one group protested?

Hon MARK BURTON: I can confirm that properties of Landcorp such as this one have always been potentially available, and still are. Therefore, nothing has changed.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I seek leave to table the article entitled “Land sale on shaky ground” from the New Zealand Herald of 27 February 2007, in which the Prime Minister admits that she has no brief on the Whenuakite situation.

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

Legal Aid—Access to Justice

6. KATE WILKINSON (National) to the Minister of Justice: Does he have confidence that the additional estimated 435,000 New Zealanders eligible for legal aid as of today will have proper, speedy, and inexpensive access to justice; if so, why?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Yes. I have confidence that the Legal Services Agency and dedicated members of the legal profession will continue to work together constructively, to ensure that legal aid services are delivered to New Zealanders most in need.

Kate Wilkinson: How can the Minister be confident of access to justice for all New Zealanders, when women in Blenheim still have to represent themselves in court to obtain protection orders, when women in the Manawatū also have to represent themselves in court to obtain protection orders; and can he possibly understand why many women simply find this too difficult and withdraw from the process, having been denied proper access to justice?

Hon MARK BURTON: I can say to the member that there are now 2,963 listed legal aid providers, which is slightly more than in the previous year. But the problem she highlights is that as with so many other professions and services in a country with a relatively small population, from time to time and in some areas there will be issues of supply of service. This is something the Legal Services Agency is looking into, and certainly in the area of domestic violence it is looking at some alternative strategies in order to try to overcome the problem.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister be crystal clear—does he stand by his statement yesterday that an additional 435,000 New Zealanders will be eligible for legal aid; and given his department does not record whether those in receipt of legal aid are New Zealanders, will his new thresholds enable foreign nationals additionally to claim legal aid?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: You’re all right, Peter.

Hon MARK BURTON: As my colleague says, the member is safe. I can say to the member that the criteria in terms of residential status is not changing, but the thresholds are. Indeed, it does mean that hundreds of thousands of additional, generally low-income and modest-income New Zealanders will now be eligible for support.

Kate Wilkinson: How can the Minister be confident of access to justice for all New Zealanders when in Central Otago one of the three family legal aid lawyers advised that in the space of only one week she had two desperate women clients needing help, but whom she could not help because of a conflict of interest—one, sadly, was a woman aged less than 20 years requiring a domestic protection order; she had a young baby, access only to a mobile phone with no call credit available, neither driver’s licence nor vehicle, and at best a lawyer 100 to 200 kilometres away—and how does making more people eligible for legal aid possibly help these women?

Hon MARK BURTON: I will deal with the second part of the question first. Making legal aid available to more New Zealanders is self-explanatory. It means that a great number of people who yesterday were not able to access legal aid, today are able, in terms of their eligibility. Secondly, those of us who live in provincial New Zealand know that it is often the case that in some areas from time to time there will be some difficulty with specialist services. That is something the Legal Services Agency is looking at right now, and is working to help resolve this particular problem.

Kate Wilkinson: How does the Minister reconcile his statement on 19 February 2007, in relation to legal aid lawyers, that the evidence is that the number of participating lawyers has been relatively steady, when the number of family legal aid lawyers has plummeted from 2,012 to 1,017 in the space of 12 months—which is why domestic violence victims end up representing themselves in court?

Hon MARK BURTON: Because the total listed legal aid provider number has increased from 2,908 in 2005 to 2,963 last year.

Kate Wilkinson: How can the Minister expect us to believe that the number of participating lawyers has been relatively steady, when he has correspondence dating back to March last year that show that in Blenheim only two lawyers are prepared to take one legal aid case a fortnight, that only three lawyers in the Manawatū region are undertaking family legal aid work, and that only three are doing so in Central Otago?

Hon MARK BURTON: I refer the member to the answer to the last supplementary question.

Kate Wilkinson: I seek leave to table the Morning Report radio transcript that recorded that a woman withdrew her protection order application because of a lack of legal representation, only to be abused again by her partner.

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

Peter Brown: I seek leave to table an answer to a written question confirming that the Legal Services Agency does not even record whether a recipient of legal aid is a New Zealander or a foreign national.

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

Kate Wilkinson: I seek leave to table a letter from the Blenheim women’s refuge, dated June last year, stating that clients prepare their own protection orders, and appear in court only to withdraw from the process because it is too difficult.

Leave granted.

Question Time

Madam SPEAKER: I call question No. 7, Steve Chadwick.

Hon Member: Your worship the mayor.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member interjecting is clearly confused that I am standing for the mayoralty of Rotorua. That rumour is about as real as that member standing for the Māori constituency on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. That is not a point of order, but it is useful at this stage perhaps to remind members that gratuitous personal comments that do not relate at all to the question or the answer do lead to disorder in the House, so I ask members to restrain themselves, please.

Carbon Footprint—Reduction

7. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister of Energy: What reports has he received on measures to reduce New Zealand’s carbon footprint?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): I have received reports on progress at both a local and an economy-wide level. Locally, I congratulate my colleague Chris Carter on the new energy-efficient Department of Conservation building, which uses 40 percent less power than a conventional building. This translates to a very substantial 40 percent reduction in any energy-related emissions from the operation of the building. On an economy-wide basis, Holcim Cement, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Greenpeace have all produced major contributions on emissions trading.

Steve Chadwick: Aside from last week’s announcement by Meridian Energy about its carbon-neutral status and Contact Energy’s plans to spend nearly $2 billion on renewables, can the Minister inform the House about other measures being pursued in the energy sector to reduce New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, I can. Solid Energy is making a $2 million investment in clean-coal technology development in Australia as part of its push towards carbon neutrality, and both the public and private sectors are working to achieve lower greenhouse gas emissions. It seems clear that the Government’s clean-energy policies are creating a sustainable future for our children and for their children.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister accept the front page story in the Independent that quotes energy analyst Molly Melhuish and the Grey Power president as stating that the Minister’s energy strategy figures for the residential sector are all wrong and out by an order of magnitude; and how can New Zealanders take seriously this strategy if such basic pieces of energy data are grossly wrong?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have not read that article. I will read it, but I do not think there are any major areas in the strategy.

Sue Kedgley: Does the Government propose to implement measures such as a carbon tax as part of its quest to reduce our carbon emissions, and does the Minister agree that without the tax it will be impossible for New Zealand to achieve the Prime Minister’s goal of becoming carbon neutral?

Hon DAVID PARKER: We are presently consulting on a range of options as to how a price for emissions could be devolved in different parts of the economy. Some of the measures being consulted upon are emissions trading and other mechanisms including carbon taxes and regulatory measures. These are not off the agenda; all of those things are still being consulted upon.

Peter Brown: Is it true or false that clean-coal technology, when it finally arrives, will have more effect on reducing carbon dioxide emissions on a global basis than anything else we are doing in New Zealand?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It is certainly true that clean-coal technology is very important in terms of stationary energy emissions internationally, particularly in developing countries but also in the United States, Australia, and Europe. It seems very likely there will be a considerable price tag attached to future carbon capture and storage technology, which is at the heart of clean-coal technology. That, again, implies a comparative advantage for New Zealand, because we are not going to have nearly as much of that cost as Australia, the United States, Europe, and China. Virtually any of our trade competitors are facing higher costs.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a 2006 report pointing out that without a carbon tax, the Government will fail to implement an effective climate change policy.

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

Ingram Report—Associate Minister of Immigration

8. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: In which paragraph, if any, of the Ingram report does Noel Ingram QC “conclusively conclude” that the former Associate Minister of Immigration did not receive information about Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with Sunan Siriwan before making his decision on 23 June 2005 to authorise a work visa for Mr Siriwan?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): I refer the member to the responses I gave to supplementary question Nos 1, 4, 5, and 6 following question for oral answer No. 9 on 28 February 2007.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister like to expand, and, if necessary, read out the answers. Just making reference is not sufficient.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Madam Speaker, you would like me to read out all of those answers again?

Madam SPEAKER: If necessary. The member who asked the question wants it to be addressed fully.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: In response to supplementary question No. 1 I said as follows—

Hon Members: Which paragraph?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am following the Speaker’s direction. I said as follows: “These matters were fully covered in the Ingram inquiry. Dr Ingram QC talks about the most likely scenario of events and that member in his select committee has issued a report that says the former Minister was blameless.” In response to supplementary question No. 4 I said: “My understanding of the balance of the Ingram inquiry’s report conclusion is the same as the member’s own and the select committee report issued”—then—“2 days ago, which says that the department’s processes compromised the Minister. In response to supplementary question No. 5 I said—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please be seated. There is constant criticism that Ministers do not fully address questions. It is entirely unacceptable in this House for the Minister to be told to shut up when he is addressing the question. [Interruption] The member who said that can leave, please. That is just outrageous.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would certainly withdraw and apologise. I do take the point you make. However, I have question No. 12.

Madam SPEAKER: I hope that members do take my point. Members are constantly complaining that these matters are not properly addressed. The Minister is addressing the question. No Minister has to give a yes or no answer to the question. That is clearly understood. Would the Minister please succinctly address it.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you for considering the position that Dr Wayne Mapp found himself in, but please accept that his outburst was based on the frustration of knowing that the Minister was asked a simple question as to what paragraph it was. The Minister would do better to say nothing, than to bore the House to tears with his lack of knowledge.

Madam SPEAKER: No, that is not a point of order. If we all clearly expressed ourselves through frustration in this House, there would be no one left. We have to show some restraint. Would the Minister please just address the question succinctly.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: To assist the House, I think that I can say that the responses to supplementary question No. 6 on that day were similar to the others that I have just read out.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think the Minister’s performance that you have just witnessed brings this House and its procedures into disrepute. The Minister has had on notice, for the last 4 hours now, a very clear question asking which paragraph contains what that Minister told the House on Tuesday of this week—that Noel Ingram conclusively concluded something. It is a very clear question, and I believe, if this House is not to be brought into total disrepute, that the Minister should answer it. He has not.

Madam SPEAKER: Of course, the members in this House can read the Ingram report for themselves, and they probably have. The Minister is not obliged to give an answer in any particular form or to identify statements in the report that he is not responsible for. The Minister certainly must address questions. It is not his report, but the member cannot demand that a particular answer is given to a particular question. What the Standing Orders require is that the question be addressed. If members do want specific answers, then I would ask them to please have the Standing Orders changed. It would make life a lot easier for most of us.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question I asked the Minister was actually asking about a statement that the Minister made to this House. So I was not asking him about the Ingram report in general, for which he is not responsible, but he is responsible for what he has told this Parliament. He told this Parliament on Tuesday of this week that Noel Ingram “conclusively concluded” that Damien O’Connor did not know before he made his decision. I asked the Minister where in the report that is contained.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The clarification from the member is helpful, because he has clarified that it was my opinion that he was after. In response to that point of order, I am happy to clarify that in my opinion, because the Ingram inquiry is the only authoritative analysis of the matter, the effect of its on-balance judgment must be regarded as conclusive.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How would that Minister describe his answer to the House on Tuesday this week that “the Ingram inquiry report conclusively concludes that the Minister in question did not receive the information before he made the decision.”, as anything other than false, when the Ingram inquiry report actually concludes: “Real uncertainty results from the available evidence.”?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Although I would not claim that my answer has particular elegance, I would suggest that it is rather better than the circular and repetitive questions.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That surely cannot be seen to be addressing the question.

Madam SPEAKER: I think the Minister has addressed the question. One of the difficulties is that when Ministers are asked for opinions, they do not necessarily have to give their opinion. I think that the line of questioning has been along the lines that these are statements of fact.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is another difficulty that arises here. The Minister just used the opportunity to speak to another point of order to clarify a mistake he made in an answer earlier in the week. At what point did he become aware of that, and why did he not formally correct an answer he gave earlier in the week? He is trying to couch it in terms of his own opinion. If we read the Hansard, he categorically stated that the Ingram report “conclusively concluded”, and he presented it to the House as though they were the words of Noel Ingram QC. Clearly, they were not. Quite the opposite is true.

Madam SPEAKER: We understand the point.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I have to say that had I felt I had made a mistake I most certainly would have clarified that point to the House. I did not make, and do not feel I made, a mistake; rather, I am restating the opinion I gave the other day, which is quite simply that because the report is the only authoritative analysis we have, its conclusions must be taken as conclusive. Quad erat demonstratum.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How does this Minister explain the file note of the Apia branch manager, James Dalmer, following his phone call with Damien O’Connor’s private secretary on 28 June, 5 days after Mr O’Connor signed his letter to Taito Phillip Field granting a visa for Mr Siriwan—a file note that reads: “Knowledge of Thai cases. Knows that Taito had these people working for him. Damien knew that before he made the decision.”?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: That too has been quite thoroughly covered in Mr Ingram’s report, which, of course, the member is at liberty to reread. As I recall it, in my opinion, the balance of judgment was that what the private secretary thought she heard was different from what Mr Dalmer thought he heard.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Who is the more credible, the Apia branch manager, who had a clear file note that “Damien knew before he made the decision.”, or the Minister’s private secretary, who first told the Ingram inquiry she could not recall a logged phone call, then that she could but could not remember what was discussed, then that she could remember the discussion but did not take any notice of it, then that she told Damien many weeks, if not several months, after his decision, and, finally, that she told him within a day or two of his decision—whose evidence is more credible?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: As we have exhaustively clarified in this House, I am not responsible for Dr Ingram or the manner of the production of his inquiry. I simply refer the member to the only authoritative analysis that the House has at its disposal, and I would not presume to second-guess it.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How plausible is it that Damien O’Connor’s private secretary, who knew the Associate Minister had declined a visa for Siriwan in October 2004, and again in March 2005, who was present at the meeting with Taito Phillip Field on 17 May 2005 and knew that Mr Field had misrepresented the outcome of that meeting in his letter of 18 May, who would receive an email from compliance officer Murray Gardiner about Mr Field’s involvement with Siriwan in Samoa on 27 May, and who would further receive a phone call from the head of service international on 9 June confirming Siriwan’s involvement with Mr Field in Samoa, would say nothing whatsoever to her Minister when she gave him the file for his decision just 8 days later?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: In my humble opinion it is entirely credible, and, for what it is worth, it is conveyed in paragraphs 157 and 158 of the Ingram inquiry report. If members would indulge me, I might add that it is supported by evidence referred to by Dr Ingram in paragraphs 125, 131, 138, 144, 151, 153, 188, 200, and 491—and why would I second-guess that?

Aviation Security—New Measures

9. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister for Transport Safety: What steps has the Government taken to ensure that New Zealand is prepared to introduce new aviation security measures in March this year?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety): The Government has launched a major public awareness campaign called Flysmart to inform international airline travellers about the new security measures that will be introduced on 31 March. These measures will limit the amounts of liquids, aerosols, and gels that can be taken on board aircraft in carry-on baggage on international flights departing New Zealand. The Aviation Security Service is recruiting around 160 additional staff to implement these measures and has already begun training to ensure minimum disruption to the travelling public.

Sue Moroney: What advice is the Government giving to the public to enable them to avoid delays?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: Through the Flysmart campaign the Government is advising passengers about how to pack their carry-on baggage so that they will not be delayed at the airport. Information has already been provided to travel agents and airlines to pass on to customers, and there will be plenty of signs at airports. The Government has also established the Flysmart website for international travellers. In the 2 weeks that the website has been live there have already been over 8,000 hits on the website. People are interested.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister recall a few weeks back some, I think, Indian gentlemen boarding a relatively small commercial aircraft with ceremonial knives under their garments, which made a number of passengers somewhat nervous, thinking that perhaps the plane was about to be hijacked; and, if he does recall that occurrence, what will he do to ensure that it does not happen again?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: First, I observe that the aircraft concerned was a medium-sized propeller aircraft with a range somewhere in the order of 600 kilometres, making it really not possible to hijack it to anywhere, except maybe the Chatham Islands on a good day if one was lucky. The security risk assessment means that we do not need to screen the aircraft; but, secondly, I observe that the pilot on the aircraft offered to look after the ceremonial knives on the flight deck to ensure that passengers could feel less anxious about their safety.

I seek leave to table the Flysmart pack of information, which illustrates for members what is permissible and not permissible on various flights.

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

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I seek leave to table a pack of the typical sorts of items that members of Parliament might like to note are permissible on flights provided they are packed like this for carry-on baggage.

Leave granted.

Small Business Advisory Group—Recommendations

10. LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) to the Minister for Small Business: Is she satisfied with the improvement from 5.3 out of 10 to 5.8 out of 10 that the Small Business Advisory Group has scored the Government’s response to its recommendations; if so, why?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister for Small Business): Relatively so, because it is going in the right direction.

Lindsay Tisch: Was it the Government’s consistent low scoring by the Small Business Advisory Group that led her to replace its entire membership; if not, why did she not retain several members, for the benefit of their institutional knowledge?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Mr Cleverley, who was a member of the group, was reported in the Dominion Post on 29 December 2006 as saying: “It is good to see we’re on the ball over there. Being part of the group involved a lot of unpaid time so after 3 years it was time for the first group to move on and a fresh lot to step in.”

Maryan Street: When was the first Small Business Advisory Group established, and what has been the response to the Government having such an advisory group?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The first group was established in 2003, originally for 18 months, but the members agreed to stay on until the end of 2006. The response has been overwhelmingly positive. As the group said in its final report to me: “It has created an effective conduit between small business and Government policy makers. We want to thank the Government for giving us open access to Ministers, officials, and documents. We have valued the trust you have placed in us.”

Lindsay Tisch: If, as the Minister stated in February 2006, the Holidays Act is “fundamentally sound”, why was she corrected by the advisory group, which said: “The Holidays Act is not a fundamentally sound piece of legislation. It is extremely difficult to implement.”?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: As Mr Cleverley also stated in the Dominion Post on 29 December 2006: “It was brave of the Government to appoint such a group, which had at times given the Government blunt advice about dealing with the concerns and challenges of small business.” The difference between advice and Government policy is that one informs the other. We do not necessarily agree with advice.

Lindsay Tisch: If, as the Minister stated: “The Government is committed to enacting a real change for small and medium enterprises.”, then why has the Government ignored the advisory group’s calls in both its reports for a personal grievance - free probation period for new employees?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The member would know, if he had actually read the Government response to the second report, that we have, indeed, published one of the options that the group put up in that document, which suggests a different way of dealing with the issue rather than having a probation-free period. That is not the only option that should be considered.

Chris Tremain: What has the Minister done to advocate on behalf of the 211,000 self-employed persons who make up 63 percent of small businesses that the Small Business Advisory Group was formed to represent, but who will miss out on both KiwiSaver and the business tax benefits that the Government will deliver to the employed and to corporations this year?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Heaps.

Police—Technical Offences

11. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister of Police: Is it police policy to arrest and prosecute people for every technical offence committed, for example when parents keep their children out of school to take them on a family holiday?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Minister of Police: No. The police, in all cases, weigh up whether it is in the public interest to bring matters before the court. Issues regarded as minor offences very rarely reach this stage.

Sue Bradford: What are the main factors police consider when deciding whether to prosecute someone for a trivial or a technical offence?

Hon PHIL GOFF: There are two key guidelines in terms of the police decision as to whether to prosecute. The first is whether there is evidential sufficiency—that is, sufficient admissible and reliable evidence that an offence has been committed. The second is that the police have to weigh up whether it is in the public interest to prosecute, and when they do that they generally follow the Crown Solicitor’s prosecution guidelines. For an alleged assault, for example, this would involve, among other things, consideration of the amount of force used in all the circumstances.

Sue Bradford: What are some of the other factors that police would take into account to determine whether it is in the public interest to bring a prosecution, were my Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill to become law?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The Crown Solicitor’s prosecution guidelines take into account a range of different factors. Probably the most important is the seriousness, or, conversely, the triviality, of the alleged offence; that is, whether the conduct really merits the intervention of the criminal law. They would look at all mitigating or aggravating circumstances. They would look at the effect of public opinion on any decision not to prosecute. They would look at the availability of any proper alternatives to prosecution. So the member will get a sense that the police will decide in all the circumstances on something that is serious and warrants the intervention of the law, not something that would be regarded as an offence, but as relatively minor.

Chester Borrows: Will the Minister confirm that every reported smacking will be investigated by police because not to investigate such matters seriously will be counter to the current family violence policy that states: “The majority of offenders in family violence cases will appear before the Court. There may be rare cases when diversion might be considered, providing it is not seen as the ‘easy option’.”?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I had the chance to look at the submission the police made to the select committee. The relevant part of it states that if section 59 were repealed, this would mean that in all cases of suspected or reported assaults on children, the police would continue to investigate the alleged assaults—that is, the police are obliged to do that right now. So, in that sense, there will not be a great change in practice.

Chester Borrows: I seek leave to table the current police family violence policy.

Leave granted.

Sue Bradford: Who can the public turn to for authoritative advice on police practice in respect of police procedures on family violence?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The Commissioner of Police himself is responsible for publishing the best-practice guidelines. They are circulated through to the police—through, I think, the intranet, police bulletin boards, and the police magazine. I am advised that the best-practice guidelines in all areas would be available to the police on request, and the same would apply in regard to the member’s bill.

Auckland—Development Plans

12. Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) to the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues: Does she prefer the proposal of the Political Reference Group or the One Auckland Plan of four Auckland metro Mayors, of which she said: “I’m impressed with the proposal—one plan, one voice and an agreed direction”, to form the basis of legislation to develop Auckland?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues: Well, I am certainly one of the Prime Minister’s little helpers on Auckland issues! The member kindly refers to the Minister’s press statement on 8 September 2006, which also said: “I support any move which helps Auckland to become an internationally competitive … city.” In December the four mayors, along with the rest of the political reference group, presented a different proposal. That proposal is now the one under consideration and discussion between the Government and Auckland leaders.

Dr Wayne Mapp: When will the Government actually introduce legislation on Auckland regional Governments—when?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: When the Government has finished its discussions with Auckland leaders and made its decisions.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Is the Government aware that unless it introduces legislation in the next 3 sitting weeks it will be actually too late to have effective reform for the next local body elections?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I remind the member that early this afternoon Mr Brownlee referred to a lack of work. This would suggest that there might be sufficient time to do lots of things before the next local body elections.

Dr Wayne Mapp: If I interpret his answer that he can introduce legislation within the next 3 weeks, does that mean that the consultation of the public will occur only during a 1 or 2 month select committee process?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. In fact, the political reference group’s proposals may or may not require legislation, depending upon its final outcome. It certainly does not necessarily require legislation that will have to take effect before the next local body elections, because that is not the nature of its proposals.

© Scoop Media