Questions And Answers - Wednesday, 21 March 2007

Questions to Ministers

Health, Minister—Confidence

1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Health; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.

Hon Bill English: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister’s mismanagement of a half-billion-dollar Labtests Auckland contract in the Auckland area, serving about a third of the population, has put laboratory testing services at risk; and what assurances has the Minister of the Health given her that there will be high-quality laboratory testing services available through this year?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Minister of Health is not directly involved in that contract process. The three Auckland district health boards are responsible for that contracting process. The court has found that the contract is invalid. The Minister will be doing everything he can to ensure that laboratory testing procedures are in place on 1 July.

Hon Bill English: What confidence does the Prime Minister have in the Minister of Health, who appointed Wayne Brown, Pat Sneddon, and Kay McKelvie as chairs of the Auckland district health boards, and appointed Ross Keenan as deputy chair of all three Auckland boards—Government appointees who participated in a process described by the High Court in terms such as “grave error” and “serious failure”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I point out to that member that two of the people he mentioned were, in fact, appointed originally by the previous National Government. I also point out to him that, in the judge’s words, the tender process was carried out in good faith and without bias.

Hon Bill English: Can we take it, then, that the Prime Minister now regards the issue as fairly minor because the court said that it was carried out in good faith; or has she read right through the judgment, which outlines in great detail how some of the named members of the Auckland District Health Board, in particular Wayne Brown and Ross Keenan, did not carry out their duty, and states that a half-billion-dollar contract was overturned because of grave error and serious failure?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I very much doubt that the Prime Minister has read the entire judgment; she is busy on other matters in the United States at present. I am equally sure she regards this as a very serious matter, given that it affects something like one-third of New Zealand’s total population. However, I repeat to the member that this is essentially a matter for the district health boards. On the matters he refers to, my understanding is that in those respects the issue is around consultation, and I am sure that even the member was somewhat surprised by the level of requirement the court placed on consultation within the district health board sector.

Hon Bill English: Who does the Prime Minister regard as being accountable for the fact that the High Court overturned this half-billion-dollar contract serving one-third of the population: is it her Minister of Health; the Government appointees Wayne Brown and Ross Keenan, who are named in the High Court judgment; or will we find—in what is now normal practice for Labour—that no one is accountable?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Clearly, the district health boards bear primary responsibility and accountability for what happened in this case.

Hon Bill English: Can we, therefore, expect the Prime Minister to follow the same path as she did in the case of the corrections debacles—that is, to defend the Minister and the Government lackeys until public—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon Bill English: Can I start again, Madam Speaker?

Madam SPEAKER: Please continue.

Hon Bill English: Can we expect the Prime Minister to follow the same path as she did in the case of a series of debacles in the Department of Corrections, whereby she defends the Ministers and the Government lackeys until public opinion forces her to take some action, and then calls for a review but holds no one accountable for mismanagement?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Clearly, the boards are accountable, but using pejorative terms such as “Government lackeys” is rather stupid and not becoming of the member.

Land Transport—Travel Time Costings

2. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Transport: Why is the time of a person driving a car to work in congested traffic ($10.95 an hour) valued by Land Transport New Zealand at more than double the time of a person sitting on a bus or train travelling to work ($4.70 an hour); and is this an indication that this Government thinks that public transport is only for people of lesser value?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport): These values are not set by Land Transport New Zealand; I am advised that they are set by New Zealanders themselves. Land Transport New Zealand collected the data from surveys carried out on car, bus, and train passengers that asked what value they placed on work and non-work travel time. I understand that these results are consistent with international findings. The massive increase in public transport investment made by this Government demonstrates that we do not place a lesser value on public transport passengers. Further, the value of travel time is only one factor considered in the assessment of whether a transport project will be funded.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does this discriminatory time valuation that Land Transport New Zealand requires to be used in all economic valuations applying for funding send the message that higher-income commuters are expected to drive to work, unlike in successful European cities where professional and managerial workers routinely travel by train because their Governments invest in high-quality public transport services?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I disagree with the member. This Government has shown we have a commitment to investing in public transport, and I am sure that member will acknowledge that her party has had some input into that. However, I would think that when people put a value on their travel time, it may be that people on buses and trains believe they can use their time more valuably because they are not driving.

Lesley Soper: By how much has the Government increased public transport investment?

Hon ANNETTE KING: We recognise that building more roads is only part of the solution, and therefore the Government has invested in public transport. For example, we have brought back the national train network—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Buses run on roads.

Hon ANNETTE KING: That is something that member did not do—his Government sold it off. Public transport was capped under a National Government at around $40 million a year. This year the Labour Government is forecast to spend $450 million. In fact, we intend to spend $1.9 billion in public transport over the next 5 years. That is an unprecedented level of expenditure.

Peter Brown: What is the estimated cost of road congestion to the New Zealand economy; and is it significant enough that our roading issues and problems need to be addressed in a reasonable time frame, particularly as the Rugby World Cup is coming to this country in 2011?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I do not have the actual cost at my fingertips, but we know that congestion is a cost, particularly in cities like Auckland, and over in the Bay of Plenty where the member comes from. Congestion is growing in Auckland because of many years in the 1990s when no investment was made in roads and public transport. I am pleased that this Government has rectified that problem. We are filling the backlog and moving forward, in terms of additional funding, to address those issues.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Slowly. It’s getting worse.

Hon ANNETTE KING: If anyone wants to take the blame for those issues, the carping member from Nelson, Dr Nick Smith, ought to put his hand up.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Will the Minister undertake to investigate the distorting effect that this valuation will have on decisions to allocate the funding package for the Wellington western corridor, where those rules would overvalue the benefits from Transmission Gully or widening the coast road, and severely undervalue the benefit of increasing the capacity, reliability, and speed of the rail system?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Oh that I could! If the member is one of those who believe in local people having a say locally, the member would be aware that in the Wellington region the Wellington regional authorities have placed Transmission Gully as a very high priority for the region. Those views have to be taken account of when the regional land transport programme is drawn up.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Is the Minister aware of any other developed country that, in order to promote public transport, has deliberately adopted a policy of maintaining congested and unsafe roads?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I am not.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: If this valuation is supposed to reflect pay rates for different classes of worker, why does it also value the time of public transport passengers, cyclists, and pedestrians at less than half the value of the time of motorists, even when they are neither at work nor going to work, but are parents taking their kids to the doctor, people involved in voluntary community work, or are people just going to the supermarket; and are we now living in a society that measures people’s worth by what they are paid?

Hon ANNETTE KING: On the last part of that question, there are some people who measure the value of people’s work by what they are paid—it is not something I believe in. But I need to point out also, as I did in my original answer, these are the values New Zealanders themselves place on their transport time.

District Health Boards, Auckland—Confidence

3. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Does he have confidence in the three Auckland regional district health boards’ chairs, and why?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): I said to the House yesterday that my confidence in the three Auckland regional district health boards hinges on their ability to secure reliable community laboratory services for Aucklanders from 1 July 2007, and on their ability to repeat the request for proposals process—this time, successfully. Today that is still my position.

Hon Tony Ryall: What plan does the Minister have to ensure that over 1 million Aucklanders can get quality medical tests in 3 months’ time; and is he really going to rely on the people who caused this fiasco to fix it?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yesterday a contract, which was in place from 1 July and covering all Aucklanders, was struck down by the High Court as being ultra vires. That is where the situation rests right now. There is no new contract in place now, and there is no ink that has dried. I have, however, spoken with many people, as one might expect, in the last 24 hours, including all of the chairs and the deputy chairs of those district health boards, and assorted people within those boards and the Ministry of Health. I can advise the House that there is a strong and urgent commitment from those district health boards to ensure that services from 1 July will continue.

Maryan Street: Can the Minister confirm that the savings to the Auckland region were thought to be in the order of $15 million per year, and can he say what difference the reinvestment of such a sum would make to the health of Aucklanders?

Hon PETE HODGSON: It is my understanding that the savings were thought to be around $15 million per year, and $15 million is a lot of money. It would, for example, deliver an extra 20 hip replacements in the Auckland region each week. It is pretty clear that $15 million is also reminiscent of Diagnostic Medlab’s net profit for 2005, which was $16.3 million, or 21 percent of its turnover. Value for money in our health system really matters.

Barbara Stewart: Would the Minister agree that there must be a better way of conducting contract negotiations in the health system than relying solely on district health board officials, who may be unduly influenced by budget restraints; if so, can he assure New Zealanders that this situation will not occur again?

Hon PETE HODGSON: There are roughly 16,500 contracts in the New Zealand health system. I must admit that very few of them are as expensive or as large as this contract, which is why, presumably, it has been a closely fought contest, including in the courts. My view is that the negotiation of contracts in the New Zealand health system is generally good or better than that. I must say that this court ruling is most unfortunate and will cost a lot of time.

Sue Kedgley: Does the Minister regret the fact that he did not intervene earlier in the Labtests Auckland decision, as he received repeated requests to do, and does he acknowledge that his failure to intervene has contributed to the present fiasco, which will cost taxpayers millions of dollars and potentially put the ability to deliver effective health services to Aucklanders at risk?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Of the 16,500 contracts in place in the New Zealand health system, I myself am involved in the negotiation of none of them. I say that it is a really important thing for our political system to deliver. The moment when a politician starts to negotiate contracts, small, medium, or large, is the time at which the possibility of a corrupt outcome exists.

Heather Roy: In light of that answer, just what responsibility does the Minister himself accept for this costly fiasco, when he was advised of the clear conflict of interest and the improper process that the district health boards had followed throughout the tender process—or does he refuse to take responsibility for any of the failures of his health system?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member is correct that assertions of a conflict of interest were made some time ago on a number of occasions by a number of interested parties. The advice I have received from district health boards and from the Ministry of Health is that the conflict of interest was being managed appropriately. The judge of the High Court yesterday found otherwise.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister agree with the chairman of the Auckland District Health Board, Wayne Brown, in his statement of August last year that Dr Bierre “was not privy to any information or participated in any discussion or decisions regarding the tender.”, when the High Court judgment raises questions as to how that could possibly be correct?

Hon PETE HODGSON: My understanding of the facts of the matter is that Wayne Brown was correct when he made that point—that Dr Bierre was not involved in the tender process. However—

Hon Tony Ryall: Oh!

Hon PETE HODGSON: Well, that is the member’s question. However, the judge found that Dr Bierre was mindful of the quantum of money that the Auckland district health boards had hoped to save. He dwelt on that at some length in his judgment and found that it was a contributor to his conflict of interest finding.

Hon Tony Ryall: How can it be that Wayne Brown says that Dr Bierre was not involved, when the court judgment shows that Dr Bierre was invited to a meeting with Auckland health bosses in November 2005 to specifically discuss the tendering of laboratory services, when minutes show he was openly hostile about his competitor, and when, as a result of Dr Bierre’s attendance at that meeting, a revised draft discussion document was circulated to district health board members, including Dr Bierre himself?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member is correct. He has got that information straight from the judgment that came out yesterday—straight from the judgment. That does not conflict with Wayne Brown’s point that Dr Bierre was involved in the tender. Clearly, Dr Bierre was found to be—

Hon Bill English: Nothing went wrong; no one’s to blame—same old story.

Hon PETE HODGSON: If the member would like to put a sock in it ever so briefly—

Madam SPEAKER: A question has been asked. It was heard in silence. Let us hear the answer in silence.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I say to the member that Dr Bierre, in a formal sense, was not involved in the tender, but the judge found, clearly, that Dr Bierre was involved in a conflict of interest. He found that very clearly; it is a very clear finding. And it is also very strongly worded. He said that the involvement of Dr Bierre, as far as the district health boards were concerned, was entirely inappropriate.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister recognise that the High Court declared this contract unlawful because Wayne Brown failed to deal with Dr Bierre’s conflict of interest on numerous occasions, and that because of Wayne Brown’s mismanagement, the health system in Auckland may face huge disruption and millions of dollars of legal claims?

Hon PETE HODGSON: If we go to paragraph 158 of the judgment, I suspect that that is where the key language is to be found. The judge found that the action taken by the three Auckland district health boards to address Dr Bierre’s serious conflict of interest was “entirely inadequate.” I agree with the member.

Hon Tony Ryall: Would the Minister like to confirm that the full context of what he said, from paragraph 158, states further: “From the time Mr Brown became aware of Dr Bierre’s serious conflict of interest, the ADHB was obliged to address it. The action taken by the regional DHBs was entirely inadequate. Indeed, apart from Dr Bierre’s abstention from voting on the 4th August resolution, there was no action.”; why cannot the Minister realise that Wayne Brown’s inaction on dealing with Dr Bierre’s conflict of interest on repeated occasions is the reason why this contract is being overturned, and is the reason why he should be held accountable?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The sequence of events is that a member of this House, Dr Paul Hutchison, received a letter from Dr Tony Bierre that invited him to support Dr Tony Bierre’s case to establish a community pathology business. Dr Hutchison, in a short and carefully worded letter to Mr Wayne Brown, advised him of the possibility of a conflict of interest. I thank Dr Hutchison for his contribution. On receipt of that letter, Mr Wayne Brown went to Dr Bierre—it is all in the judgment—and asked what was up. Dr Bierre wrote back, saying his business plans were in mothballs. What he did not tell the board, or anyone else, subsequently was that he was taking them out of mothballs.

Hon Tony Ryall: Has the Minister been told why, despite knowing that Dr Bierre was intimately involved in Labtests Auckland’s proposal and that Dr Bierre was a critical player in the thinking behind the whole tender process involving the Auckland District Health Board, Wayne Brown and the other district health board chairpersons even tolerated the fact that they had received a bid from a consortium involving one of their own members who had been intimately involved in putting that whole tender out?

Hon PETE HODGSON: For the avoidance of doubt, I tell members that I absolutely accept the judge’s findings—absolutely. However, within that finding—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I tell the Hon Tony Ryall that he was accorded the courtesy of asking his question in silence. This is an important matter. I ask the member please to do the same for the Minister. Would the Hon Pete Hodgson please address the question.

Hon PETE HODGSON: A full reading of the judgment—I am sure the member has made one—will detail the steps that the district health boards took to satisfy themselves that they had addressed the conflict of interest. They did satisfy themselves; they did not, however, satisfy the judge.

Police Stations—Reports

4. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Police: What reports, if any, has she received about recent police station developments?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police): [Interruption] Madam Speaker, I think we are on to police now and not on to Gerry Brownlee.

Madam SPEAKER: Would members please settle and have the courtesy to allow other members to be heard.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Last Friday I officially opened the new Manukau Police Station. An investment of $13 million in stage one of a two-stage development will result in enhanced community safety for South Auckland people. It is a 24-hour hub, and is centrally sited in the police district. A state-of-the-art underground prisoner-transfer tunnel has been built between the new station and the District Court. The police think this will help to make the escorting of prisoners more safe.

Moana Mackey: What other reports has she seen about recent New Zealand police station developments?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I know that the member will be very interested that last Thursday I officiated at the sod turning for the new $15.4 million Gisborne Police Station. The current station was built in 1966. The new site is an improved location in the central business district. Members might be interested to know that the Manukau hub was the 31st new or refurbished police station built under this Labour-led Government. This follows the decade of the 1990s, when National, as usual, allowed police facilities to be run down—and that was along with its plan to reduce police numbers by 500.

Ron Mark: Could the Minister give the House a progress report on the Government’s plans to recruit front-line officers to fill these new police stations, and how we are progressing that?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The police are on track to recruit 1,000 more police officers over 3 financial years in line with the confidence and supply agreement that Labour has with New Zealand First. Besides steady, ongoing recruitment, a factor that is greatly assisting the police is that the sworn police attrition rate is 3.9 percent—the average attrition rate for a medium to large company is around 13 percent. As of March 2007 there has been an increase in sworn staff members of 423, and that is not including recruits at the Police College. That increase was since March 2006. This equates to a 5.7 percent increase.

Question No. 2 to Minister

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): I seek leave of the House to table two papers in relation to question No. 2. The first one is the page from Land Transport New Zealand’s manual that sets out the values that must be used in terms of travel time for different purposes.

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

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: I seek leave to table an article from the Dominion Post this morning about a rail commuter who has added up the cost to rail commuters of time lost standing on a station watching full trains go past without stopping.

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

National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Design

5. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement in the House yesterday that “ … I think that after all the troubles we had in rolling out this system there is a way to go yet to ensure that parents—and I include employers—understand this system fully.”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Yes. As I made clear yesterday, I understand that there are some concerns in the community about the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). The earlier operational difficulties have now been resolved, but a number of changes in the design off NCEA are yet to happen, and I am certainly committed to that further refinement taking place. The next job for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is to do more to explain NCEA to the wider public so that they can feel confident that we now have the right system for the country.

Hon Bill English: In the light of his view that the only problem with NCEA—the only problem there ever has been with it—is that parents do not understand it, has he seen the comments by the president-elect of the Secondary Principals Association that an independent review is required to restore public confidence and prevent the development of a two-tier qualification system; if so, what is his response?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: To the first part of the question, can I answer as I did yesterday by saying to the member that he should not begin his question by making up the answer he would have preferred to have from me—something his predecessor was doing yesterday. I now move to the second part of the question. Having talked to the leader of the Secondary Principals Association this morning, I can say that he and I are, I think, comfortable that we are at the point now, in terms of changes to NCEA, where a number of design features are yet to be improved on this year, and that some kind of independent inquiry would get in the way of the roll-out of those changes, particularly given that numerous inquiries in 2005 resulted in a very large number of recommendations, nine of which are yet to go and about 119 of which have been completed.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Why is the Minister refusing to entertain the idea of introducing a statistically moderated scholarship examination, as was originally intended, and instead is holding steadfastly to a standards-based approach the unreliability of which is causing schools to fall back on international examinations, thus undermining the integrity of a comprehensive national assessment system?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I always listen very closely to what the member has to say, because he has a lot of sensible things to say about education, but as yet I have not received one single communication of any kind from the education sector requesting what he is requesting, and that is why I am not considering it.

Dianne Yates: Could the Minister be specific about the reviews of NCEA that have been conducted, and what the outcomes of these reviews are?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As I mentioned before, several internal and external reviews were commissioned in 2005, including two State Services Commission reports. Those reviews set out 191 recommendations; 168 recommendations have already been addressed, 14 are ongoing, and nine are still being worked on. The State Services Commission report on the delivery of secondary school qualifications also found: “A clear message from the majority of schools [was] that notwithstanding difficulties with implementation, NCEA is enhancing learning outcomes for students and improving teaching practice.” That, I think, is the central point. It is the right kind of assessment for this country. It was introduced by National and implemented by a Labour-led Government. We are on the right track. The question before us is to make sure that we get all of it exactly right.

Hon Bill English: Why does not the Minister tell the House that those reviews he refers to were all forced on him, despite his spending months in this House pretending that there was nothing wrong with NCEA, and that that is why parents do not take his reassurances seriously any more—because they believe he is more interested in politics than he is in the future of their children?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Actually they were not forced on me, unless the member means “me” in the sense of the general person who occupies this particular role. The issues came about because, as I have said repeatedly, the roll-out of NCEA was problematic; therefore, the review in 2005 was very necessary. But if anybody is playing politics here, it has to be a member of a party that, when in Government, introduced standards-based assessment and now will not stop trying to undermine it. I know that, come the election, members of that party will be supporters of NCEA; as always, they will flip-flop and agree with what is a sensible policy.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister explain to the House why some parents prefer an exam system that he has described as suitable for places like Botswana over NCEA; or does he not yet understand that every time he says the Cambridge International Examinations are bad, thousands of parents decide they must be good?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think the reason that some parents opt for an exam like the Cambridge one is very simple: it provides more predictability. The member will know, because I think he has been to university, that one of the things people often look for from assessment systems that are about ranking is predictability. One of the things that many of the schools that have been asked by parents to follow this particular line are doing is responding to parental requests for a more predictable form of assessment, which all sorts of ranking exams are. I think that one of the things we have seen in the last two exam periods is that NCEA is becoming highly predictable, as well. That will meet the needs of parents who are seeking a predictable exam system.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister feel just a little bit out of touch, given that yesterday he told the House that all the educational professionals support NCEA and what he is doing, then today the chairman-elect of the biggest group of secondary school principals in the country said that principals would like to see an independent review; does this mean that the Minister is not talking to them or that he has stopped talking to anyone who disagrees with him?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Quite the contrary; I talk to Michael Cullen all the time, and now and again we disagree! As I mentioned to the member before, I rang Peter Gall this morning. I am just trying to look for the exact reference, but Peter did stress to me on the phone, as he has stressed to journalists and as has been recorded on Morning Report, that he is a strong supporter of NCEA. His school in the past has rejected the Cambridge exam as not being appropriate for a New Zealand setting, and that remains his position.

Question No. 6 to Minister

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): My question is to the Minister of Energy—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: This chipping at members across the Chamber is not helpful. [Interruption]

GERRY BROWNLEE: It is time the member went—you have been too tolerant, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I am. If there is another interjection of this sort from either side, members will be out.

GERRY BROWNLEE: I will try not to provoke him.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not helpful, either. We will all start again. Just ask the question, please.

Wind Energy—Growth

6. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Energy: Does he agree with the New Zealand Wind Energy Association chief executive, Fraser Clark, who said today that: “While wind energy is growing somewhere between 25-35% per year globally our growth has been inconsistent in the last couple of years due to a lack of clear Government policy on renewable energy and climate change, as well as practical issues such as consistent consenting processes”?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): A decade ago, wind generation was close to nil. In the quarter ending December 2006, it was 2 percent of total generation, and is climbing fast. I believe that it is clear that the Government’s climate change policies have brought forward wind power development by many years.

Gerry Brownlee: How can the Minister make such a bold claim when the quarterly energy statistics released yesterday showed that in 2006, electrical energy produced from renewable sources was 2 percent less than the 10-year average?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In the case of wind, I can say very confidently that we already have 170 megawatts of wind at the moment. There is 151 megawatts of wind under construction this year. So while the rest of the world is growing wind generation at the rate of about 25 percent per annum, according to the member’s primary question, New Zealand’s wind generation is going up by 88 percent this year alone. That is a marvellous achievement.

H V Ross Robertson: Is the Minister able to inform the House exactly how much extra wind generation is in the consent process, not counting the 150 megawatts of extra new wind power already under construction?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, I can. An additional 1,518 megawatts is currently in, or has recently completed, consent processes. To put that in perspective, that is nine times the current wind generation capacity, and it really is further proof that the Government’s climate change policies are working.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister accept the views of the Wind Energy Association, a group that includes three of the four State-owned electricity generating companies, which says that the slow growth of sustainable wind generation is due to a lack of clear Government policy and target-setting for renewable energy, or are we to believe from his answers today that he knows something that the State-owned enterprises do not?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I do not agree that wind generation is growing slowly. The member’s own question stated that the international rate of growth is 25 to 30 percent per annum. New Zealand’s growth in wind generation this year is 88 percent, and nine times the current generation capacity is in consent processes. That would be amongst the highest rates of progress in the world.

Gerry Brownlee: Why does the Minister remain so optimistic about a sustainable energy future when the chief executive officer of the Wind Energy Association says that the Government’s goal of being truly sustainable is a long shot if Government policy does not change, and he says that at this rate it will be 20 years before our growth gets anywhere near that of the rest of the world?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Submissions are open on the New Zealand energy strategy until 30 March, and I expect we will be receiving a very constructive submission from the Wind Energy Association, not least because it is highly supportive of the Government policy that has brought forward the development of wind generation in New Zealand by many, many—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It hasn’t. You’re behind the pace.

Hon DAVID PARKER: That is not true. We are not behind the pace. The rate of growth of wind generation in New Zealand is amongst the highest in the world.

Gerry Brownlee: Why does the Minister keep up the pretence that under his stewardship, New Zealand is moving towards a more sustainable energy future, when Meridian Energy’s wind energy development manager says that the establishment of a wind farm is a bit like a game of snakes and ladders—often it is one step forward, but usually it is two steps back?

Hon DAVID PARKER: That is an interesting point. That is a reference to consenting processes, and, of course, one of the ideas we floated in the New Zealand energy strategy is the idea that we might call in some wind farm applications in order to put them through single consent processes. Interestingly, the Wind Energy Association notes that it does not always approve of that, because it thinks that consent processes, particularly for small developments, are running very well and will be easier under existing processes than if we call them in. I am sure that we welcome all of these different contributions—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why don’t you reform the RMA?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I say to Dr Smith that we already have. The member should wake up. We did so 2 years ago. Despite National’s protestation that this is the reason why wind development is not proceeding, we can show National members that wind generation is increasing by 88 percent this year, with another 1,500 megawatts in planning.

Gerry Brownlee: Has the Minister seen the quote from Bernhard Voll, technical director of Allco Wind Energy, who stated that the Government, after making the commitment to reduce greenhouse gases, just kept consulting, and he also stated: “This is not going to help us …”; and how can an answer like the one the Minister gave give Mr Voll, or anyone else in the industry, any encouragement that this Minister is committed to growing our renewable energy sources?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The draft New Zealand energy strategy proposes, as a policy setting for generation, the principle that all new generation capacity ought to be renewable, except to the extent necessary to maintain security of supply. I can inform the House that the advice I have is that the security of supply constraint will not be upon us for some time to come. So, effectively, the country is able to set its sights on all new generation capacity for the foreseeable future coming from renewable sources.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I know that the Minister of Energy and Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues has repeatedly referred to the Government’s climate change policies, so I seek leave to table the editorial of the New Zealand Herald that states: “New Zealand still has no climate change policy”.

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

Hon DAVID PARKER: I seek leave to table three pages in relation to wind farms. The first is the list of the 170 megawatts of current wind farms, the second is the list of 151 megawatts of extra capacity being built now, and the last sheet is the 1,518 megawatts of wind power either recently consented or in process.

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

Employment Relations Act—Effectiveness

7. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: Has she received any recent reports regarding the effectiveness of the Employment Relations Act 2000?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour): Actually, I have. I have recently received a report measuring work stoppages under the Employment Relations Act compared with those under the Employment Contracts Act. It shows that the average rate of work stoppages has dropped by 20 percent under the Employment Relations Act. The average rate of working days lost has halved, and wage losses have dropped by 48 percent—and that does not even take into account the fact that many more New Zealanders are employed today than in the 1990s. Those results have been achieved because the Employment Relations Act is both fair and balanced.

Darien Fenton: Has she seen any other reports concerning the Employment Relations Act?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I have. I have seen a number of reports proposing radical changes to the Employment Relations Act that would destroy the successful balance that exists in the current legislation and take us back to the failed, conflict-ridden regime of the past. Those proposals are being put up by the National Party, which seems to be still in denial about the success of the Employment Relations Act.

Housing New Zealand—House Inspections

8. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Housing: How often are Housing New Zealand Corporation houses routinely inspected?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: As a responsible landlord the corporation is committed to ensuring its rental properties are looked after and kept in order. As a matter of procedure the corporation inspects properties twice a year, or more frequently if required. Properties are also inspected after the end of each tenancy and before the beginning of a new one.

Phil Heatley: How was a South Auckland tenant able to rent out a State house in its entirety for 4 years and live elsewhere, without the scam being detected by routine inspections?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I will come back to the general question in a moment, but I say to the member that if he has a particular case it is always useful to put the case down so he can have it answered particularly. But, in general, the subletting of State houses is not tolerated by the corporation. Where there are allegations of it they are investigated and appropriate action is taken. There are 66,000 tenants. Most tenants are good tenants, but occasionally there are people who do things that are abusive. For example, 26 allegations of subletting are under investigation around the Panmure region at the present time, but, as in many cases, it turns out that those will result in some being upheld; others will be the kinds of allegations that are made between neighbours who are in dispute. But the member can be reassured that it is the corporation’s business to ensure our properties are treated fairly.

Russell Fairbrother: How often were State houses inspected in the 1990s under National Governments?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have received reports on this matter that would—

Hon Maurice Williamson: He didn’t ask that.

Madam SPEAKER: The answer will be heard in silence, please.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It is a good answer.

Madam SPEAKER: Please answer the question.

Hon Maurice Williamson: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That question was very clear. The member asked the Minister how often the corporation’s houses were inspected in the 1990s under a National Government. He did not ask about any report or about anything comparative. There is no ministerial responsibility for something that occurred under a previous Government last century that is not related to this Minister.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry to inform the member that there is ministerial responsibility if it is in the portfolio, even if it is in the past. Would the Minister please address the question.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Properties were inspected twice a year. In other words, the previous National Government ran a very similar regime to inspections that are carried out today. There is only one difference: National had fewer houses to inspect, because it sold 13,000 of them.

Pita Paraone: Notwithstanding the state of repair of houses under the responsibility of the Housing New Zealand Corporation, does the Minister believe that the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s needs-based allocation policy should look after the needs of New Zealand citizens first and foremost; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, it should look after the needs of New Zealanders first, with one exception. We agreed to take people into the country who arrive as refugees from places like camps across the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We agreed to take those people and settle them, and they reside in State houses.

Bob Clarkson: Why was another South Auckland tenant able to rent out an entire State house for a full 2 years, and a Hutt Valley tenant able to rent out a State house for well over a year, without being detected by the inspectors?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Particular cases like that of course are investigated. I give the answer again that subletting of houses is not tolerated by the corporation. There are 66,000 tenants. They are routinely investigated, and where we have complaints the Housing New Zealand Corporation ensures that there is not the abuse of public property that subletting would imply.

Phil Heatley: For what reason did the Housing New Zealand Corporation decide that the tenant who illegally rented out a State house for 4 years was allowed to reoccupy the house, following the discovery of the scam?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: In the case of people who are in need of housing—I do not know the exact circumstances of this case—when I was the Minister of Housing I was often placed in a position where those people simply have nowhere else to go. I am sure Mr Heatley will know from reading the law that the Housing New Zealand Corporation is the only agency required to house people who have nowhere else to go. That may be the explanation.

Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister tried to weave himself out of the question by referring when he was the Minister of Housing. Of course, this person was subletting for 4 years. That was way back when the Minister was the Minister of Housing.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister did address the question.

Phil Heatley: Does the Minister expect the public to believe his statement in this Chamber last year that such subletting scams were “extremely rare”, given that we now know that 23 recent subletting scams were happening right under the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s nose and that routine inspections were not even picking them up, so he would not have a clue whether these cases were rare?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am sure the Minister of Housing would stand by that statement. As I mentioned before, there are 66,000 tenants. No one tolerates subletting. Where we find it, those tenants are dealt with as they ought to be. What I mentioned before is worth Mr Heatley taking into account. Allegations are often raised, but not necessarily proven, because people are in dispute.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table an admission of the Housing New Zealand Corporation to the Social Services Committee about 23 proven subletting scams that have occurred recently—most rorts spanning well over 6 months.

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

Overseas Investment Office—Sales after 2005

9. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: How does the total value of deals approved and the amount of land approved for sale by the Overseas Investment Office since the overseas investment legislation changed in 2005 compare with the total value of deals approved and amount of land approved for sale in the 18 months prior to the change in legislation?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): The total value of deals has increased from approximately $4.7 billion to $7.2 billion. The net amount of land approved has increased from 58,000 hectares to 300,000 hectares. This apparently extremely large increase is almost entirely—99 percent—due to a single transaction, the sale of Carter Holt Harvey’s forestry interests offshore. Those interests had until recently been owned offshore anyway, before Graeme Hart bought them with, clearly, the intention of reselling them subsequently.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister believe that the current legislation, which places minimal restrictions on foreigners or non-residents buying residential property, is contributing to the property price boom; if so, why is the Government doing very little—or, some might say, nothing—about addressing this issue, especially given that it claims that access to quality, affordable housing is one of its policies?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I know there are often articles about that, usually in the Listener, but I do not agree that it is one of the major drivers of the increase in housing costs. The increase in house prices has occurred across almost the entire country, often in areas of previously quite low housing value, and still relatively poor housing areas. Even an area such as Ōhai-Nightcaps has seen significant increases in property values. It is hard to believe that that is due to foreign owners coming in.

Shane Jones: What reports has he seen from the real estate sector on the impact of the legislation?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen a report entitled Overseas Investment Guidelines Working, which quotes a real estate agent suggesting that the new legislation was “scaring off potential overseas buyers who did not meet its requirements”. Although we welcome applications that meet the requirements of the Act, which are, in fact, quite strict, I am glad to see that the legislation is fulfilling its purpose of acknowledging that it is a privilege for overseas persons to own or control sensitive New Zealand assets.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister think it is fair that foreign property speculators earning higher incomes in stronger currencies face no restrictions on buying residential property, whilst New Zealanders earning an average income are being priced out of the residential market; if he does not think that is fair, will he tell us what he proposes to do to level the playing field and give New Zealanders—particularly young New Zealanders—a fairer go?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The issue, of course, is that restrictions on urban land tend to be quite a lot fewer than those on rural land, or sensitive land that abuts reserves, etc. As I said, I do not believe there is strong evidence that it is overseas buyers who are pushing up property prices in urban areas. That is due to a combination, firstly, of strong employment growth; secondly, of income growth; and, thirdly, of population growth. These are the real factors that have been driving the growth in property values within New Zealand. The other point I would make is that the level of the dollar being quite high at this point means that for an offshore owner it is relatively expensive, rather than cheap, to buy a New Zealand property.

Question No. 8 to Minister

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier in question time I raised with you a point of order about the appropriateness of Russell Fairbrother’s supplementary question about the National Party and its housing policy, and you said that the question was in order. I refer you to Speaker’s rulings 139/6 and 139/7. Speaker’s ruling 139/6 states: “The Government can answer only for its own intentions and has no responsibility for the Opposition.” Speaker’s ruling 139/7 states: “A question which does nothing more than request information about a party document, as opposed to seeking information about Government policy, is out of order.” Madam Speaker, if you look at Speaker’s rulings 139/6 and 139/7, you will see that Mr Fairbrother’s question was indeed out of order.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): There is a very important point here. One has to draw a very clear distinction between responsibility for policy issues—clearly, a Government Minister is not responsible for National Party policy—and merely eliciting information about what a Government did at some point in the past. Otherwise, theoretically, under that situation, even if it was a Minister in a previous Government of the same political hue who did something, the current Minister could claim that he or she is not responsible because there is now a different Minister—could hide behind that fact.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for raising the issue. I took it that the question was not asking about National Party policy, but was, in fact, within the area of ministerial responsibility for housing—and that responsibility is not time limited in that sense. But I thank the member for raising the question. In future, I will remind members of that ruling—that they are not responsible for each other’s policies.

Child, Youth and Family—Confidence

10. ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): Does she have confidence in Child, Youth and Family Services; if so, why?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)): Yes, but there is always room for improvement.

Anne Tolley: What does it say about your management—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That member is the senior whip for the Opposition, and she should know not to address questions to you.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, that is true. The whip did actually use the term “you”; I am sure that was an oversight. I would, however, remind members that if they just asked their question instead of making statements, we would not have these difficulties. Would the member just ask the question, please.

Anne Tolley: What does it say about the management of Child, Youth and Family when even the Principal Youth Court Judge, Andrew Becroft, is slamming Child, Youth and Family for ignoring its responsibilities in youth justice and for breaching all statutory requirements in the case of a young offender, calling that “woeful and concerning”?

Hon RUTH DYSON: In the case in question, I am advised that this was one example—out of over 250 cases per month that are seen by the Youth Court—where the standards expected, and, in fact, required by the department were not met. The social worker in question did not meet the expected performance standards. Both the social worker and his supervisor will have their future performances specifically monitored.

Lynne Pillay: What are the key pieces of work that Child, Youth and Family is engaged in that contribute to the well-being of New Zealand children?

Hon RUTH DYSON: A great deal of good work is under way—too much to list here. It includes helping to raise awareness in the community about caring for our children and preventing abuse and neglect, implementing the differential model in order to ensure families receive the right support from the right agency in a timely way, responding to increased notifications faster and completing investigations in a timely way, increasing the number of social workers—in particular, the number of registered social workers—and increasing workforce training in and the capacity of the youth justice services.

Anne Tolley: Why is that almost 12 months after the damning youth justice capability review was released, youth offenders are still without social workers, and social workers are still handing in late, deficient, and grossly unacceptable reports to the judiciary; and what are you doing about it?

Madam SPEAKER: I just remind the member to please address the Minister, and not the Chair.

Anne Tolley: Why is that almost 12 months after the damning youth justice capability review was released, youth offenders are still without social workers, and social workers are still handing in late, deficient, and grossly unacceptable reports to the judiciary; and what is the Minister doing about it?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The member has made the same mistake in her question as she did in her question last week, when she made an accusation about Child, Youth and Family as if it was a fact and, on investigation, it turned out to be completely wrong. In her last question the member implied that social workers up and down the country are doing this. I advised her in my answer to the primary question that this is a one-off example. The social worker did not meet the expected performance standards; this is not indicative of a systemic failure. The member would be better off if she supported the good and very difficult work that competent social workers do, rather than using a one-off example to fail the whole department.

Anne Tolley: Is it not true that nothing has changed in the last 7 years of this Government, and that on the Minister’s watch young criminals are being left to grow up into more experienced and more violent criminals?

Hon RUTH DYSON: No, that is not true, at all. What is true is that nothing has changed in the member’s constant undermining of social workers in our country.

Judy Turner: Is the Minister concerned about a possible increase in complaints about her department from parents who may feel that the department is misusing its statutory power if the current proposed amendment of section 59 of the Crimes Act is successful; if so, does the Minister see an intensified need to have in place an independent complaints authority for Child, Youth and Family?

Hon RUTH DYSON: It is critical, even in a time of increasing notifications, that the department is resourced to be able to deal with those notifications in an appropriate way—particularly in a timely way. The facts that we now have fewer than 800 unallocated cases and no urgent or critical cases are an indication of the department’s ability to respond to notifications. With regard to the latter part of the member’s question, as the House is aware, I am looking at an improved complaints procedure, so that we can have better public confidence in the operation of Child, Youth and Family.

Anne Tolley: What is being done to address the serious concerns of Judge Becroft; and why should we believe the promises, when 7 years ago this Government promised to do better but has dismally failed yet again?

Hon RUTH DYSON: As I attempted to explain to the member in my answers to the primary question and previous supplementary questions, one case out of over 250 cases per month is not an indication of a systemic failure.

Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table the oral judgment of Judge Becroft dated 8 February 2007, in which he says he has no confidence that anything has changed at the coalface in Child, Youth and Family.

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

Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table the youth justice capability review, released in February 2006, which details “a lack of skills and inconsistent practice across the country”.

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

Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table the First Principles Baseline Review from September 2003, which states: “No one has clear accountability for youth justice.”

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

Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table a news story from Television New Zealand entitled “Major changes needed at CYF” from November 2003.

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

Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table the report of the Ministerial Task Force on Youth Offending from April 2002, which states that youth justice is underfunded and under-resourced.

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

Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table the Youth Offending Strategy from 2002, which states that it is clear that current practice needs to improve.

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

Climate Change—Contributions to Debate

11. Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: Has he received any recent reports of outstanding contributions to the climate change policy debate?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): Yes. Contact Energy has released a web-based carbon calculator that assists New Zealanders to calculate their own carbon footprint. This helps families concerned about their world and future generations to identify sensible actions they can take to make a difference. I applaud this initiative.

Hon Marian Hobbs: Can the Minister please tell the House about further reports of outstanding New Zealand contributions to combating climate change?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I will mention two from a growing list. The Bank of New Zealand has set itself on the path to carbon neutrality by 2010, and Prue Taylor from the University of Auckland has been awarded a World Conservation Union award as one of 20 outstanding women identified across the world as making a difference on climate change and other sustainability issues.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister name any area of public policy that is in as big a mess as that of climate change, when his Government said that New Zealand stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars from the Kyoto Protocol but then admitted it was out by $1 billion; when it has done U-turns on the “fart tax” and on the carbon tax, and is about to do a U-turn on the deforestation tax; when, despite the Prime Minister’s rhetoric of promising carbon neutrality, our emissions are growing faster than those of any other country within the OECD; and when, after this Government has been in office for 7 years and has spent $28 million on policy advice, a New Zealand Herald editorial states: “New Zealand still has no climate change policy”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I will not repeat the fact that wind generation is growing 88 percent this year. That seems to be pretty good progress—and it does not count Gerry Brownlee’s or Nick Smith’s! I am very confident that the wide range of policies we are proposing in the documents that are out for consultation until 30 March are a very good policy platform. I have no doubt that New Zealand will continue to do its part and lead the way in the southern hemisphere in relation to climate change mitigation.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the special feature in the New Zealand Herald on climate change policies that states that the Government’s discussion documents lack equity, clarity, and coherence.

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table a document from, again, the New Zealand Herald stating that Government assurances that it made no such promises to the forest industry bear comparison with Bill Clinton’s statements about Monica Lewinsky.

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

Office of Treaty Settlements—Confidence

12. CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Does he have confidence in the Office of Treaty Settlements; if so, why?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Yes, because it is my experience that the staff of the office are hard-working and conscientious.

Christopher Finlayson: Why has the Office of Treaty Settlements neglected or refused to talk to seven claimant groups with historical ties to lands claimed by Ngāti Whatua?

Hon MARK BURTON: I do not accept that the member’s assertion is correct, but it is clearly the case that in advancing to negotiation with a group that is ready it is not always possible, and indeed the tribunal itself has in the past advised that delays should not be visited upon those who are ready to negotiate whilst waiting for those who are not yet ready.

Dave Hereora: How many groups is the Crown currently working with towards Treaty settlements?

Hon MARK BURTON: The Crown is currently working with over 20 groups, all dealing with multiple claims. Both the number of groups in negotiation and the number of claims they cover is higher now than in the last decade. Almost two-thirds of these groups have entered into negotiations since November 1999.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. Has the Minister been advised that at the Te Arawa mandate hearing held on 9 March the Crown witness, when asked whether within the Office of Treaty Settlements it is a discretionary matter to advise the Minister of Waitangi Tribunal recommendations and their significance, the witness responded that “It is possibly regrettable that some matters were not put before the Minister.”, and can he advise now what matters were not put before him that might mitigate against any decisions made by the Waitangi Tribunal on issues of mandate and cross-claims?

Hon MARK BURTON: It is my understanding that that exchange related to a specific matter in relation to advice the tribunal had given that there should be provision for hapū/iwi to enter into and withdraw from the mandated process. Whilst that specific item was not referred directly to my attention, none the less in a broader sense it was covered by numerous briefings. In fact, on a number of occasions during the course of that negotiation I agreed to both the inclusion and withdrawal of hapū/iwi from the process. So it had no material effect at all.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Does the Minister agree with the reported statement of the Prime Minister that the Office of Treaty Settlements had conducted “exhaustive consultation” around treaty claims in Tāmaki; if so, is it his position that “exhaustive consultation” now includes a refusal to talk with claimants?

Hon MARK BURTON: No, but I suspect that the member is being very selective in her quotation and information. It is clear that my negotiations, and those of my officials, first and foremost focus on mandated negotiators. Secondly, an increasing number of discussions take place, pre-negotiation, with a wide range of groups. But at any given time a finite number of groups can be engaged with.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Why did the Office of Treaty Settlements tell the Waitangi Tribunal last week that Ngāti Whātua was the only Auckland tribe willing to enter into negotiations with the Crown, when the Office of Treaty Settlements itself had earlier refused to enter into negotiations with other claimant groups, such as Marutūāhu?

Hon MARK BURTON: I am not aware that the Office of Treaty Settlements made that statement precisely. But I am happy to receive a transcript, and I will get back to the member on the detail of her question.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Kia ora anō tātou. What advice did the Office of Treaty Settlements give to the Minister about the sale by Landcorp of 1.8 million Fonterra shares, worth $11.7 million, from the Ngātea farm, prior to any consideration of its being set aside for Hauraki Treaty settlements, and does he agree that this is just a continuation of the strategy of selling the Crown jewels; if not, why not?

Hon MARK BURTON: I do not generally get advice on the sale of Fonterra shares, in relation to any matter. I am not the Minister for State Owned Enterprises, but in any event, at the time in which we will be engaged in mandated negotiations with Hauraki, detailed briefings around those matters that are relevant and pertinent to the negotiations will be forthcoming.

ENDS

© Scoop Media