Questions And Answers - Wednesday, 28 March 2007

Questions to Ministers

Minimum Wage—Proposed Changes

1. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: What changes will be made to the minimum wage on 1 April this year?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour): I am very pleased to announce to the House that as of 1 April the adult minimum wage will have its biggest increase since 1999, moving from $10.25 to $11.25 per hour. The youth rate will increase from $8.20 to $9 per hour. This change will effectively give 119,100 workers a pay rise next Sunday.

Darien Fenton: Has the Minister seen any reports on changes to the minimum wage?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Actually, I have. I have seen a report that notes that the Labour-led Government has raised the minimum wage each and every year it has been in office, increasing it from $7 an hour in 1999 to $11.25 an hour this year—a total rise of $4.25 an hour, or 61 percent. That result stands in stark contrast to that of the last National Government, which over 9 years raised the minimum wage by less than $1.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister share the New Zealand First view that economically the country is well on track to enable the Government to give assurances that the minimum wage will be increased to $12 per hour within the term of this Parliament, as is stipulated in the confidence and supply agreement?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The Labour-Progressive Government has a confidence and supply agreement and an arrangement with both New Zealand First and the Green Party to have the adult minimum wage at $12 an hour by the end of this term, if economic conditions permit.

Darien Fenton: Has the Minister seen any reports on other changes to the minimum wage?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I have. I have a report that states: “We don’t believe it’s necessary to move the minimum wage up. That wasn’t what we did during the ’90s.” That report is from the deposed National Party spokesperson on industrial relations, Wayne Mapp. But I note that the leader of the National Party has flip-flopped on that position and said he is not personally opposed to adjusting the minimum wage. Although I welcome with some healthy scepticism John Key’s mimicking of Labour’s fair approach to the minimum wage, judging by National’s abysmal record of adjusting the wage—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Ministers can respond to reports but not comment on the policies.

Smacking Ban—Prime Minister's View

2. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement prior to the last election when asked whether she supported a ban on smacking: “Absolutely not. Well, I think you’re trying to defy human nature.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes.

John Key: Is it the Government’s intention to adopt Sue Bradford’s bill as Government business?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No decision on that has been made.

John Key: Why will the Prime Minister not just tell the public of New Zealand that it is her intention to adopt Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill as a Government bill, and that the reason for doing so is that the Government wants to take this deeply unpopular legislation off the table as quickly as it can?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Precisely because—as I said in my answer to the first supplementary question—a decision has not been made. I suggest that the member might want to consider following some of the very sound advice from the Press, for example, which suggests that members might regard the bill as an opportunity to demonstrate their own boldness and leadership by doing what is right for society rather than what might seem politically expedient for themselves. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: The member’s question was heard in silence; the answer was not. All members in the Chamber are entitled to hear both the question and answer. I remind members of that—otherwise, they will be leaving the Chamber.

John Key: When will the Prime Minister make the decision about whether the Government intends to adopt Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill as Government legislation, and what will influence the making of that decision?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: A decision will be made in due course, and all relevant factors will be taken into account.

Hon Steve Maharey: Given the Prime Minister’s support for amending legislation so as to remove the defence of someone who uses excess force against a child, as is currently under the Crimes Act, can she give us a steer on the kind of advice she is receiving on the kinds of groups that are advocating that there should be no change to this kind of legislation?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have in front of me pages explaining the position of one such group that the National Party seems proud to be associated with—The Christian Foundations of the Institution of Corporal Correction—which states: “If the child is angry after the smack (slamming doors, pouting, etc.), you have not smacked hard enough,”. Who wants to be identified with that sort of position?

Sue Bradford: Can the Prime Minister confirm that dozens of credible individuals and organisations are supporting my bill, including the Children’s Commissioner, the Families Commission, the Child Poverty Action Group, Parents Centres, the Parenting Council, Presbyterian Support, the New Zealand Psychological Society, the National Council of Women, and many others, and that my bill does not create a new offence of smacking or anything else but simply removes the defence currently available to parents who inflict quite serious damage on their children?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I absolutely agree with the analysis of the bill that the member has just offered. I am proud to be associated with organisations like Barnardos, Save the Children, and Plunket, which are very supportive of the amendment bill. Further, I draw the attention of the House to the injunction of the Christchurch Press that said members should not contemplate supporting the weak-kneed compromise being promoted by Mr Borrows—a compromise, I believe, that National MPs are bound by caucus decision to support.

John Key: Is the reason the Prime Minister will not tell the people of New Zealand today whether the Government intends to adopt Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill as a Government bill that the last time her Government gave notice of trying to sweep this off the political agenda, just last week, Dr Cullen said he was going to have an urgency motion, and what we saw then was that Dr Cullen failed, just in the same way that she will fail?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member might one day understand something about decision making, and that is that one consults widely. I understand that his caucus finds his style of leadership rather less than collaborative. That will never be said over here.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister realise that if she were not whipping her unwilling caucus and forcing the likes of Annette King, Harry Duynhoven, Dover Samuels, and many others into forcing this legislation through the House, the bill would not pass, does she realise that she is out of step with 83 percent of New Zealanders who do not want it to pass, and has it finally dawned on her that her Government has become so arrogant that there is only one way for it to go, and that is out of office?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Not only do I not realise any such thing, I wonder whether the member might consider releasing—

Madam SPEAKER: Order! Please be seated. It is impossible to hear through the barracking. A question was asked. An answer is to be given. We are all entitled to hear that answer.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Not only do I not realise any such thing but I note that there are good-hearted members of the National caucus who do not want to whipped into voting for the Borrows amendment.

Heather Roy: Will the Prime Minister answer my question that she failed to answer yesterday, which asks what right she believes she has to override the view of the majority of New Zealanders and her own caucus in order to tell me, as a mother of five, how to raise my children?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Presumably, the member, being an ACT member, also objects to being told that her children must be sent to school.

John Key: If the Prime Minister thinks Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill is such a good bill and that the 83 percent of New Zealanders who have consistently opposed it are so completely wrong, why will she not simply give her caucus a free vote?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The Labour caucus has discussed this bill, as I am sure the National caucus has. The National caucus made a decision to support the Borrows amendment. The Labour caucus made a decision to support this bill.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to consider question time, because it has become unruly. Every MP gets an opportunity to ask a question. In the case of the ACT party we get one supplementary question. Heather Roy came down yesterday and asked a question of the Prime Minister. It was our one question, and we sat here quietly through question time to ask our question. It is a serious question, and I think it should be seriously addressed. We actually used our supplementary question again this time to put the same question. Yesterday we got some statement from the Prime Minister about what Jenny Shipley had to do when she was Prime Minister. That answer could not possibly have addressed our supplementary question. Today we asked a specific question, again with our one supplementary question, about section 59, and we received a throwaway, flippant remark from the Prime Minister about compulsory schooling. That cannot possibly be addressing the question, and I have to say that it pulls our chain a bit. We come to the Chamber respectfully asking questions, respecting the Government, and expecting an answer from the Prime Minister of this country—and so do the people of New Zealand, who deserve better.

Madam SPEAKER: The Prime Minister was asked a question. She was asked for an opinion. She gave an opinion, and that is one of the problems with those sorts of questions. It was a rhetorical answer. The member may not have liked it, but it was an answer. The answer was given in the form that the question was asked. That is one of the difficulties, I believe; when members ask for an opinion, they get one.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Does the Prime Minister accept that it is the Government’s and Parliament’s duty to protect the most vulnerable members of society, and in that case it is perfectly legitimate to have laws that make it quite clear that beating up kids is illegal?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Absolutely. I believe that this Parliament has a duty to defend the most vulnerable. Let us remind ourselves that in the Unicef report of 2005, New Zealand ranks third-worst out of 27 OECD countries in terms of children’s death from maltreatment. I know that that statistic does not worry the National Party; it worries me.

Water—Tradability

3. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister for the Environment: Ki a ia nei, he taonga hoko te wai; mēnā ehara, he aha ai hoki?

[Does he believe that water is a tradable commodity; if not, why not?]

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment): Let me reiterate the words of my colleague the Associate Minister in the House last week that “water is a public resource that the Government and local authorities will continue to manage on behalf of all New Zealanders.” I can further advise the member that the management of water in New Zealand is based on consents, not on property rights.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Has the Minister read the article in the Dominion Post, “Call for market in water”, in which Simon Carlaw, Chief Executive of the New Zealand Water and Wastes Association, proposes law changes to facilitate water trading, and is this what is intended in the proposed “cap and trade” strategies outlined in the Sustainable Water Programme of Action Cabinet paper; if not, what is?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: No, but it will not surprise the member to know that this Government and I do not generally agree with the policies of the Business Roundtable or its acolytes.

Hon Peter Dunne: Can the Minister confirm, as he said in his original answer, that it is the Government’s policy and intention that the water resource will be administered fairly and without discrimination by the Crown and by local government on behalf of all New Zealanders?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I cannot be clearer than to repeat the answer I gave in reply to the primary question. The Government regards the water resource as a resource that local authorities in Government will continue to manage on behalf of all New Zealanders.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Is the Minister aware of the statement from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu chairman, Mark Solomon, that Ngāi Tahu were frustrated that they were not consulted in the drafting of the Government’s Sustainable Water Programme of Action; and what is the reason for denying Ngāi Tahu when they applied to participate in the consultation process?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Yes, I am aware of that statement and I must say that it puzzled me somewhat, given the extensive involvement and engagement with Māori that has taken place on these issues as far back as July 2003, and, also, the fact that, as the member will doubtless be aware, the ministerial advisory group that advises Mr Anderton and myself on this matter includes Edward Ellison from Ngāi Tahu and George Asher from Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What progress has the Minister achieved in addressing the two goals that emerged from the iwi chief executives’ forum held on 21 November 2006—namely, the importance to iwi of kaitiakitanga in water management, and the need for the Crown to address Māori rights and interests in water?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Cabinet will be considering and responding to those issues in due course.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I seek leave to table the article in the Dominion Post, “Call for market in water”.

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

Te Ururoa Flavell: I seek leave to table an article from the Southland Times of 24 March 2007 in which Ngāi Tahu accused the Government of injecting fear into the community by suggesting that Māori want ownership of fresh water.

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

Health, Minister—Confidence

4. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Health?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes.

John Key: Who will be held accountable for knowingly signing the contract with Dr Bierre, a man whom the district health boards knew at the time they signed was using inside information, and a man whom the Prime Minister has described as duplicitous, and whose behaviour, she believes, may border on criminal?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Clearly, the board is accountable. The first task right now is to secure lab services while the Government considers what other inquiries might be made.

Hon Phil Goff: Is it correct that Dr Bierre’s impropriety in remaining intimately involved in the deliberations leading up to the selection of the lab service provider when he had an absolute conflict of interest lies at the heart of the problem, yet while he was doing that he was directly and personally supported by his close friends National MP Dr Paul Hutchison and—his running mate for the board—Dr Jackie Blue?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I can absolutely confirm that to be the case. Indeed, when one looks at Dr Bierre’s letter to Dr Paul Hutchison, one finds it clear that Dr Hutchison had suggested that Dr Bierre write to him soliciting a letter to Wayne Brown. It is further clear from my investigations that Dr Bierre acted as a scrutineer for the National Party at the Onehunga Primary School booth in the 2005 general election.

John Key: Why should the New Zealand public have any confidence in a situation where the same people in whom the Prime Minister is saying she has no confidence at all—and whom she is refusing to express confidence in—are now being asked to sort out the contracts and the mess that she seems to be blaming them for getting the public into?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The court has provided a very clear direction of what should happen, and that is that the boards should go back to the drawing board on a tender.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Madam Speaker—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. There is a practice growing that when some members rise to ask a supplementary question, comments are made of a personal nature that are certainly not conducive to the keeping of order in this House. Every member in this House is entitled to ask a supplementary question without that sort of comment from any side of the House.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: What percentage of the Labtests Auckland consortium shares did Dr Bierre have and at what price, and what did he and his partners gain from this involvement?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The court judgment reveals that Dr Bierre was given 15 percent of the Labtests Auckland consortium shares, for a total sum of $83,000. The contract value, of course, over the 8 years of the contract was half a billion dollars. It is further noted in the judgment that Dr Bierre had contributed none of the $17 million of working capital to establish this service.

xxxfo The court judgment also makes clear that in the consideration of what proportion of the shareholding Dr Bierre should have, the key attributes he was said to bring to the consortium were his position on the Auckland District Health Board, which provided excellent lines of communication of information, and his being a major influence in the restructuring model for pathology services provision. This is a man Jacqui Blue was proud to have scrutineering for her at the 2005 general election.

John Key: If the Prime Minister thinks the appointees cannot do their job properly, and if she thinks Mr Bierre is such a bad individual, why is she entertaining his possibly being able to enter into a new contract with the district health boards?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I would like this answer to be listened to in silence because I want to be very careful that I do not say anything that invites judicial review. Any such direction from me on who should be considered for the contract could well invite judicial review. I note from the judgment that the plaintiff is no longer seeking a remedy that Labtests Auckland not be able to tender, and that the court in fact ruled that the unfair advantage Labtests Auckland had gained was overcome by the process being started again. The court further ruled that the very public nature of the proceeding had now effectively neutralised Labtests Auckland’s advantage.

John Key: How can she have confidence in the Minister of Health, who told the House yesterday that he has no objection to the Auckland regional district health boards giving a multimillion dollar contract for lab services to someone whose behaviour she has suggested could be criminal?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I was here yesterday and I am not sure I heard anything along those lines, but I would repeat the answer I just gave: for either me or the Minister to indicate whom a tender should now be awarded to runs the risk of a decision made following such a direction being judicially reviewed.

John Key: Can the Prime Minister tell the country who will be accountable for this fiasco, given that her own appointees signed a contract with Dr Bierre knowing that he had inside information; whom will she be holding accountable, and when will she be determining that?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I said, the board is accountable. Both the Minister and I have declined to express confidence while there are new arrangements to be put in place from 1 July. We will be considering what further investigations are to be made into the quality of the advice on which the board acted.

Dr Paul Hutchison: I seek leave to table a reply by the Minister of Health, Pete Hodgson, where he directly thanks Dr Paul Hutchison for being the first—

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

Dr Paul Hutchison: —to point out a conflict of interest to the Auckland District Health Board, and where Justice Asher says—

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. The rule is that when members seek leave to table documents, the documents are to be identified; a speech is not given to describe what is actually in the documents. I have noticed the practice has come about for, in effect, people of all parties to, in fact, make speeches. In future I will be cutting them off. The document has to be identified, but it does not have to have a full explanation after it. Was there any objection to the tabling? There was objection.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Can I then seek leave to table the letter from Dr Hutchison to Mr Brown, the chair of the Auckland District Health Board, which, having pointed out the conflict of interest, then states that Dr Bierre—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated! I do not need any assistance from that side of the House. I was rising to make the point.

Leave granted.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like you to review the ruling that you have just made, and question whether in fact there was interruption during the point of order from the Prime Minister, and what the remedy for that is. It is not usually, I think, a fourth general warning. Mr Brownlee obviously led the interruption, but at least six of his mates were screaming during the point of order. That is outside the requirements, and, in the last week, many of us have been required to leave the Chamber for a lot less.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes. I know that the member is right. But I would also say that the Prime Minister was going on to describe the document as I was rising to my feet. Now, everybody knows what the rules are. Points of order are to be heard in silence. When points of order are made to table documents, a brief description only will be given in future; if members continue, they will be leaving.

Dr Paul Hutchison: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just as a question of clarification, how many times is it possible for one to table the same document?

Madam SPEAKER: Well, these matters, as I am sure the member knows, are with the leave of the House.

Auckland Regional Transport Authority—Rail Electrification

5. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Is he satisfied with the Auckland Regional Transport Authority’s business case for the electrification of the Auckland passenger rail system; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): A case has been put forward that sets out plans and justifications for electrification. There are still a significant number of issues surrounding that—in particular, the issue of funding.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Why does Land Transport New Zealand require the use of the Treasury discount rate of 10 percent to evaluate major passenger transport investment, while countries like the UK, the USA, Canada, and Australia use 3 to 6 percent, thus valuing future benefits more highly; and does he agree that the 5 percent discount rate used in the New Zealand Energy Strategy draft for energy-efficiency investments is also appropriate for rail electrification, which both increases energy efficiency and uses renewable energy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: To some extent, discount rates are arbitrary, whichever ones are used. I would have thought a discount rate of 3 percent would be exceptionally low if it applied to almost any project, particularly given the structure of New Zealand’s interest rates, which have a bearing upon an appropriate discount rate. One could use a somewhat lower discount rate, but it would not make as big a difference to total cost-benefit ratios as the member might think.

Peter Brown: Although it is a bit like the chicken and the egg, is there not a pressing need for more modern locomotives and carriages, the double tracking of the rail track, and the upgrading of many stations, just to keep up with increasing demand, and are not all of those required ahead of the electrification of the Auckland rail system?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: At the end of 2005 we announced $600 million for the upgrading of Auckland’s rail network. The most recent announcement within that context was the reopening of the Onehunga line and the upgrading of the Newmarket Railway Station. Electrification actually has a cost of, at the moment—and these things always tend to increase once one gets closer to them—half a billion dollars, which is interesting, because in the Auckland plan of a year ago I think the cost was $170 million. It is not just a matter of stringing up electric wires; there is a great deal more to electrifying the railway than that. Of course, that would tend to lead on to an argument for a billion-dollar project, which is an extremely rubbery estimate around the building of the underground loop.

Gordon Copeland: Is the Minister aware that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority is also interested in the possibility of diesel electric engines for new train services in the Auckland region, and that that would be at a fraction of the cost of complete electrification, and would have a very positive effect on climate change policy, to the extent that it would take a lot of trucks and cars off the road?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is obviously true that the extent to which we can increase the number of rail passengers—and the growth in rail usage in Auckland in the last 4 years has been very substantial indeed—will take some pressure off the roads. It will not remove the need for completion of Auckland’s road network, because the numbers involved in rail transport are still relatively small, and most of the traffic is not simply passenger traffic moving from one place to another; a great deal of it is goods and services traffic, for example. A decision around electrification will enable decisions around long-term rail purchases to be made, but, contrary to what is often stated, even if the decision were made now, there would still be a need to acquire some diesel engines in the interim, because the current timetable would have electrification completed in 2013.

Shane Jones: What other steps is the Government taking to support passenger rail in Auckland?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There has been a massive level of investment in public transport in Auckland. In terms of the current quinquennium—2006-10— spending on local roads has gone up threefold; on State highways in Auckland, nearly fourfold; and on public transport in Auckland, twelvefold. So it is quite clear where the major thrust of increased investment has gone.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does he agree that if we are attempting to move to a quality public transport system that is used by not just low-income people, it is appropriate to value the time saved by commuters who choose trains at the same rate as we value the time saved by car drivers commuting, in evaluating the benefits of public transport investments?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Again, one could argue a great deal around that. I notice that the valuation of both is at a very low level, given what wages are. But, of course, one of the essential differences is that if one is driving a car, one cannot be doing anything else; if one is in a train, one can. Therefore, the value of time lost when in a car is more than that lost when on a train.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does he agree that the economics of rail change if rail rolling stock is regarded as having a life of 40 years—which it does, in fact, have—rather than the 25 years that the Land Transport manual directs?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If rail rolling stock is to last 40 years, usually a great deal of work has to be done to it in the interim; often, there are two or three rebuilds during that period of time. The point I am trying to make is that one can fiddle the figures as much as one likes to produce the answer one wants, but I do not think that is the best way of making rational decisions around these sorts of issues.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Why is he happy to fully fund State Highway 20 when the benefit-cost ratio is 1.2 and falling with the increase in construction costs, but not at this stage to even partially fund the Auckland rail electrification, with a benefit-cost ratio of between 1.5 and 2.34, if we use even a conservative discount rate of 7 percent, an assumed life of 40 years, and the same value for travel time saved; and when will he make a decision to electrify now?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Well, I am never going to make a decision to electrify now—I am quite sure of that. It would be a sheer physical impossibility to engage in that. I think the member needs to consider that we have to work through this process carefully, and one of the key issues in any such decision is who pays what. She might find that if her local motorists in the Coromandel are paying the full cost of Auckland’s electrification, it might not be wildly popular.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a summary of the business case for rail in the August 2006—

Leave granted.

Laboratory Testing—Confidence in Auckland District Health Board Chair

6. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: What is it in the Auckland laboratory testing High Court judgment that prevents him from expressing confidence in Wayne Brown, chair of the Auckland District Health Board?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): The judgment is critical of Mr Brown in several places, most notably in paragraph 155, where the judge said that although Mr Brown may have interpreted Dr Bierre’s statement that he was “mothballing” his activities as a promise that Dr Bierre would stop seeking funding, Mr Brown should have clarified that. In other words, if Mr Brown took Dr Bierre at his word, he should not have done so.

Hon Tony Ryall: Has the Minister ever sought any assurance or advice directly from Wayne Brown, or discussed with Mr Brown his handling of the Bierre conflict of interest, prior to the recent High Court decision; if so, when?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Through the Ministry of Health I maintained a close watch on the contract as it went through its various processes: the letting of the tender, the court case, and the approach of 1 July 2005. In the course of that I have spoken to Mr Brown on many occasions, and there has been no suggestion that any conflict of interest was material. In fact, the board received advice from both the Audit Office and its own legal support that it was not material.

Hon Phil Goff: Is the letter of 27 June 2005 to Wayne Brown as chair of the Auckland District Health Board from Dr Paul Hutchison, which was signed by him in his capacity as National’s spokesperson for health, therefore a ringing endorsement of Dr Bierre and the advocacy of his case; and is it a personal endorsement by Dr Hutchison or, in fact, an endorsement by the National Party?

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is, of course, a serious issue, but, in respect of the questions that are being asked, the Minister has absolutely no responsibility whatsoever.

Madam SPEAKER: I agree with the member. The first part of the question was all right, but the second part was certainly out of order. The Minister may address only the first part.

Hon PETE HODGSON: In answering the first part of the question I can confirm that the letter was signed by Dr Paul Hutchison as the National spokesperson on health, and I note in passing that that was during the long 2005 election campaign. Had National won that election, Dr Hutchison would probably have been Mr Brown’s boss.

Hon Tony Ryall: Can the Minister confirm that he met with Mr Wayne Brown within 6 weeks of the Minister first discovering the conflict of interest allegations involving Dr Bierre; and can the Minister advise the House whether he received any assurances or advice from Mr Brown personally at that meeting, assuring him as to the handling of the Bierre allegations?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Given that I meet with Mr Brown a lot, the answer to the first part of the question is, quite probably, yes. However, the answer to the second part is no, because I had long since received advice from the Auckland District Health Board that it did not perceive there to be any conflict of interest.

Hon Tony Ryall: So is the Minister confirming that he met with Mr Brown within weeks of first being alerted to the Bierre conflict of interest allegation, and that he did not raise that matter with Wayne Brown, the man who was responsible for overseeing the handling of the conflict of interest in this matter?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am confirming that rather than waiting for weeks to get confirmation, I sought and received consultation within days.

Hon Tony Ryall: Would it surprise the Minister to learn that prior to Wayne Brown becoming chairman of the Auckland District Health Board, members of that board were required to declare conflicts of interest at the beginning of every meeting as a standing item on the agenda, and that one of Wayne Brown’s first actions as chairman was to ditch the declaration of interest as a standing item at district health board meetings; and does he realise that that decision by Wayne Brown may, in fact, have proved fatal to this contracting process?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Far from it! After people were elected at the late 2004 election, the Auckland District Health Board held a workshop. It was led by Richard Westlake, who is a well-respected governor of many boards. I have read the notes from that workshop. They are very clear that conflict of interest issues matter, and they are very clear about how they might best be avoided. Dr Bierre, regrettably, did not follow the advice he was given.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister realise that it now appears that every district health board in New Zealand, except Auckland District Health Board, requires its members to declare conflicts of interest as a standing item on board agendas at the beginning of every meeting, and that the Auckland District Health Board appears to be the exception with regard to that because Wayne Brown ditched the requirement in his first act as chairman of that district health board; and does the Minister now believe that a declaration of interests should in fact be on the agenda of every single district health board in New Zealand?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Managing conflicts of interest is the responsibility of boards and of the members who comprise them. The Auckland District Health Board went through a process to ensure that all its new members knew what the issue was about—and, on top of that, the Ministry of Health ran workshops, as well. There is no shortage of information on how to manage oneself, if one believes that one has a conflict of interest—no shortage of information on how to do that. It happens at Cabinet level, often, for example. We know how to do it; unless one chooses not to do it, the rules are clear.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table two sets of agendas. The first is that of a meeting of the Auckland District Health Board before Wayne Brown became chairman—

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document—

Hon Tony Ryall: which shows conflict of interest was—

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry; I am just giving a ruling. The member has identified what the agenda was. Is there any objection?

Leave granted.

Hon Tony Ryall: And the second is a document that shows that Wayne Brown became chairman of the Auckland District Health Board and ditched the requirement.

Leave granted.

Superannuation—Annual Adjustment

7. BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How much extra per week will people on New Zealand superannuation receive as a result of the annual adjustment coming into effect on 1 April this year?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Superannuation and veterans pension rates are being set at 66 percent of the net average weekly wage as at 1 April 2007, in line with the Government’s agreement with New Zealand First. From 1 April the rates for New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension will be increased by 5 percent. If the rates had risen by the consumer price index adjustment alone, they would have risen by 2.63 percent. The increase for a married couple will be $20.24 per week net, or $1,052.48 per year. The increase for a single person living alone will be $13.16 per week, or $684 per year.

Barbara Stewart: Can the Minister advise the House of any other policies aimed at improving the lives of our seniors?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am aware that good progress is being made on the SuperGold card, and that New Zealand First is working with the Government to progress the matter of portability of overseas pensions and funding within the elder-care sector.

National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Confidence

8. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Does he have full confidence in NCEA to deliver a fair, robust, and reliable qualification for New Zealand students; if so, why?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Yes, I have confidence in the ability of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Ministry of Education to deliver a fair, robust, and reliable National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) qualification. Reviews in 2005 set out 191 recommendations to improve the system. Agencies have already implemented 168 recommendations, giving priority to the urgent operational issues. As a result, the 2006 assessment process was smooth and transparent. We are now working through the final recommendations, and further refinements to the design of NCEA will be put in place this year.

Katherine Rich: Why is the Minister so confident, when the Prime Minister has said on radio that she is “at somewhat of a loss” and “a little mystified as to why some of [NCEA’s] outstanding matters haven’t been dealt with.”, before now—including some matters that she believed had been agreed to by the Government 2 years ago but that had still not been implemented?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As I said to the New Zealand Herald, where the member has got that report from, I think the Prime Minister represents the justifiable urgency we feel to make sure that these recommendations are put in place, and that is what will be happening this year.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Urgency? It should have been done 2 years ago.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I should mention to Mr Nick Smith, who is yelling across the House again, that if he goes to the State Services Commission report he will see that the State Services Commission recommended this as a 5-year change plan, so we are doing OK, but, of course, as the Prime Minister suggests, we need to move urgently.

Hon Marian Hobbs: What are the benefits of NCEA?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: NCEA provides a standards-based assessment that is fit for the needs of students in this century. For example, it gives students more varied opportunities to learn. It provides students of all abilities with the scope to show what they can do. It recognises achievement using a range of assessment methods. It reports meaningful information about students’ actual abilities, and they can take those to a future institution or to an employer. That is why the vast majority of educators and employers agree that we are headed in the right direction, as reported in the State Services Commission report in 2005. It wants us to focus on continuous improvement to New Zealand’s national qualification. Meanwhile, I believe that the National Party’s continued calls to return to the old style of assessment are not worth considering.

Hon Brian Donnelly: In the Minister’s considerations of possible changes to NCEA, to which of the following is the Minister giving serious consideration: the removal of unit standards from NCEA credits; improvement of the moderation of internal assessment; acknowledgment of “not achieved”; or provision of additional credits for merit and excellence awards?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The agenda for change in NCEA has been set largely by the State Services Commission report that I mentioned before. As I have said in the House and on a number of occasions, I am looking forward to working through the remainder of those recommendations during the year, and I am certainly looking forward to the input from that member.

Katherine Rich: If the Prime Minister is surprised, “mystified”, and “at somewhat of a loss” to explain why changes to NCEA have not been implemented, that is not a ringing endorsement of his ministerial leadership is it?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am sure that if the Prime Minister were asked the question that the member raises she would say that, yes, I am a hard-working and conscientious member. I say to the member that I share the Prime Minister’s view that there is a need to move as rapidly as we possibly can on NCEA to ensure that we have all of the recommendations in place, and that is what we are going to do.

Katherine Rich: In that case, is the Minister implying that the Prime Minister wading into his portfolio and saying that she is surprised, mystified, and at somewhat of a loss to explain the lack of progress with NCEA is a good thing—it is not a good look, is it?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have to say that the Prime Minister is always a good look in all portfolios.

Katherine Rich: Has the Prime Minister discussed her concerns about NCEA with him personally, in particular asking him for an explanation as to why changes that she thought were agreed to 2 years ago by the Government have not been implemented?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As the Prime Minister pointed out earlier today, unlike the National Party we are a very collaborative, open, talk-to-each-other kind of party. We are constantly consulting and working back and forwards. I can assure the member that the Prime Minister has discussed with all Ministers aspects of their portfolio, and she certainly discusses those things with me.

Katherine Rich: When the Prime Minister says that the Government agreed 2 years ago to returning a record of failure to a student’s record of learning and says she is “somewhat at a loss” as to why that has not happened, why did he not do it?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: At the risk of tedious repetition, which I think is in the Standing Orders, I say to the member once again that in 2005 we had 190-plus recommendations, of which 161 have been done. As I mentioned before, the focus initially has been on operations running smoothly, and that has, of course, happened. We have had some design changes in, and we are about to embark on the remaining ones.

Hon Brian Donnelly: What does the Minister believe would have been the consequences if the original programme for the introduction of NCEA as established by the previous National Government had been followed?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: All I can say is that given the total and utter disaster of 9 long years of a National Government, it would have been another disaster.

Katherine Rich: Why does the Minister not understand that he will get tedious repetition of the same question when he does not answer it; and why does he not answer the question, which is that if the Prime Minister thinks that 2 years ago recording failure was agreed to by her Government, why did he not implement that?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am really sorry to have to repeat my answer again to the member, but I have to have to take her back through what we have been doing. From 2005, of 191 recommendations 161 or so are done. First of all, as a priority, we have introduced the operations part of what we have been doing. That is running pretty well, I think we would all agree. We have done similar design changes and we are about to move on the others. I think the Prime Minister—I say once again—is quite rightly saying that we need to move with urgency.

Katherine Rich: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question was pretty specific. It asked the Minister why he had not implemented a specific decision that the Prime Minister thought had been made. The Minister went on to make a whole bunch of amorphous statements about the wider process that is being undertaken. In my view, he made no attempt to address the question. It was just a load of blather and a lot of words.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry. I think the Minister did attempt to, and did, answer the question at great length on several occasions. But as members know, they do not always get the answer they want from the question they ask.

Families—Benefit Changes

9. RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What changes that will benefit New Zealand families come into force on 1 April this year?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I am pleased to advise the House that a number of significant changes take place from 1 April, in addition to the increases already announced to superannuation, the minimum wage, and annual leave entitlements. As endorsed by the House yesterday, the Working for Families tax credits will increase by $10 per week per child on 1 April. Unemployment, sickness, invalids, widows, and domestic purposes benefit rates will all increase in line with the increase in the Consumers Price Index on 1 April. Additionally, on 1 April there will be an increase of $10 per week per child in the foster care allowance, and a $20 per week per child increase in the orphans and the unsupported child’s benefit rates. Those moves will ensure that all families in New Zealand will share the benefits of a growing economy.

Russell Fairbrother: Has the Minister seen any reports that not all families should share in the wealth of a growing economy?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I heard an extraordinary report from the House yesterday that an MP had described targeted tax credits as a joke. I doubt whether William and Josephine from Kaitāia, who actually live in that member’s electorate, would think that receiving more than $300 per week in Working for Families tax credits is a joke.

Hon Parekura Horomia: How much?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: More than $300 per week. But I am sure they would have regarded the $10 per week that was being offered by National at the last election as a complete farce.

Corrections, Department—Confidence

10. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he have confidence in his department; if so, why?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections): Yes, but there is always room for improvement.

Simon Power: What does it say about the management of his prisons when a former officer claimed on One News last night that guards used access to cellphones, drugs, gang paraphernalia, and conjugal visits in order to “buy good behaviour” from inmates “on a constant basis”, while management turned a blind eye?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have inquired whether management was informed by this person of any such allegations at any stage. I am informed that no such information was provided to management. I remind the member that these are allegations. We welcome any information that that individual can provide to Mr Patten, who is carrying out an independent inquiry at Rimutaka Prison at this moment.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm, in respect of the use of drugs as raised by Mr Power, that in the dying days of the last National administration 61 percent of inmates tested for drugs in Rangipō prison showed positive, and that in the last year—1999—an inmate was murdered because there was a gang war within the prison between those supplying LSD, alcohol, and marijuana?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I can confirm those outrageous statistics, and I remind that member that we have spent a huge amount of money improving the security systems within our prisons. We have reduced the rate of drug offending, which is now down to an estimated 15 percent, and at one prison that rate is down to 13 percent. I believe that that is a huge improvement.

Simon Power: Why, as was alleged last night, is contraband being used as a management tool to keep inmates quiet, and how can this behaviour from Government employees be condoned when it involves not only items that prisoners cannot access—because they are supposed to have lost their liberty—but also illegal items?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: No such behaviour would be condoned, in any way. These are allegations, and I would encourage the individual who has made them to take the information to Mr Patten to have them thoroughly investigated.

Simon Power: What is the Minister’s response to claims made by the prison guard on One News last night that conjugal visits could be arranged for inmates in exchange for monetary payments to guards, and does allowing these visits not create a massive breach of security?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I would remind that member, before he goes on, that I am informed that those allegations were made by someone who was arrested by the police.

Simon Power: How can the Minister have confidence in his chief executive, Barry Matthews, who said in the weekend that “It would be foolish to think it’s just a few bad apples because there’s clearly been more than one or two people involved and therefore one has to also say it has to be the culture …”, yet told the New Zealand Herald a month ago that the number of prison staff involved in corruption represented “just a few bad apples”?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Because that is the situation. We have 11 staff currently stood down at Rimutaka Prison, and we have two at Christchurch Prison. Wherever there are indications of inappropriate behaviour or illegal behaviour, we expect prison managers to follow it up, to stand those individuals down, and to ultimately prosecute them.

Simon Power: Why is his department seeking tenders to pay a contractor $180,000 plus GST to watch guards at Auckland women’s prison talking to inmates; and is this initiative simply consistent with a prison that was being built for 3 years before the costs to finalise it were established—those costs being $100 million over the original estimate—and consistent with a department that is on track to spend $1 million a month on consultants?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The Government has spent $158 million building a 286-bed prison to securely contain, rehabilitate, and reintegrate the female prisoners who are sent there.

Simon Power: It was supposed to cost $57 million.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The evaluation the member refers to is to measure the gains that the new prisons and systems are providing for the corrections system.

Ron Mark: Is not the most important thing right now, in terms of restoring public confidence in the Department of Corrections and the justice system, that we see thorough investigations take place; that we see people who have been identified as having broken the law prosecuted; that convicted people are put in prison regardless of what office they might hold in the Department of Corrections, today or in the past; and that those people are brought to account by the law?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Absolutely, and it is my determination and that of the chief executive, Barry Matthews, to do exactly that.

Takeovers Code—Avoidance

11. MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce: Has she received any reports of deals being structured as schemes of arrangement and amalgamations in order to avoid the Takeovers Code; if so, what steps is she taking to address this issue?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): The outgoing chair, John King, and the new chair, David Jones, have renewed the Takeovers Panel’s calls for these issues to be addressed. When the earlier call was made public last year an amendment to the Securities Legislation Bill was proposed on the basis that we should not wait for another piece of legislation. Then the Government proposed an out-of-scope amendment to the Business Law Reform Bill to address an aspect of its concerns. The first was proposed by the National Party, and the second was opposed by the National Party. I have now referred the matter back to the Takeovers Panel. I am confident it will report a solution that will be acceptable to everyone.

Maryan Street: Why has the matter been referred back to the Takeovers Panel when it has already reported once on this matter?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Since the time of the Takeovers Panel’s report, the Government has announced a new regulatory impact analysis framework to take effect from 1 April 2007. I have asked the Takeovers Panel to include a regulatory impact statement with its report. This is the first time that this measure has been adopted. This will strengthen the process and is consistent with this Government’s approach to ensuring quality regulation. The Takeovers Panel has welcomed the reference and has issued a statement today saying it will commence the work immediately and in so doing, will consult further with the commercial community.

Simon Power: What does the Minister say to current minority shareholders who, while she orders another review, have to potentially bear the consequences of a loophole that Pansy Wong suggested should be closed in the first place, through an amendment during the Committee stage of the Securities Legislation Bill, 7 months ago?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I would ask them why the National Party had not supported the amendment to the Business Law Reform Bill.

Carbon Credits—Devolution

12. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement in respect of forestry and the Kyoto Protocol: “Nor was there any promise to industry that the credits would be devolved.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, but if the member has information from the time of the last National Government that he would like to throw into the equation, I am all ears.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I actually have some information about her Government. How can the Prime Minister pretend that no promise was made to devolve credits to foresters, when in July 2000 the Cabinet record states that it was agreed that “all or most sink credits” would be tradable internationally and would accrue to those undertaking sink initiatives?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am well aware of the July 2000 “in principle” Cabinet decision to allocate some emission units relating to the 2008-12 period, and that in principle some proportion would accrue to those undertaking relevant activities. Of course, that is not a decision or a promise to devolve anything free of charge, and as the member is well aware, in April 2002 the Government decided not to confirm that decision.

Hon Jim Anderton: Can the Prime Minister confirm reports that the only person who has promised foresters carbon credits is Roger Dickie of the Kyoto Forestry Association, who did so as far back as the mid-1990s, well before Kyoto was even negotiated?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That does indeed appear to be the case. I understand that that would, of course, involve a transfer of up to $1.5 billion to those owning forests. I also see that the National Party, whose leader has gone from believing climate change is a hoax, to saying he always believed it was a problem, is now promising to return some of the Government’s held carbon credits to the post-1990 foresters. My question is: “How much?”, and whether it is the whole $1.5 billion that Roger Dickie wants.

R Doug Woolerton: Is it the Government’s intention to have an internal private carbon trading regime within New Zealand, while our international Kyoto responsibilities are handled exclusively by the Government?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Obviously a “cap and trade” mechanism could be what comes out of all the deliberation at the moment. A lot of options are on the table, and I take this opportunity to thank parties, from New Zealand First, to United Future, to the Greens, who were prepared to enter into constructive discussion about that—something we are not hearing from the hard-core Opposition.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What did the Government mean when it published the document entitled Forest Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol, which states on page 10 that Cabinet has agreed that foresters would get a proportion of benefits from forest sinks, and the article goes on to quote an example: “Mr Pine plants a 10 hectare woodlot in the winter of 1990. … He will therefore be eligible for sink credits proportional to the carbon stock increase between 2008 and 2012”; if that was not telling foresters to plant trees and get credits, what in Buddha’s name did it mean?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It would be a fairly silly forester who took that as a signal to plant trees, when it was a scenario in a discussion document that followed an “in principle” decision, which had yet to be confirmed, and of course was not, in the event, confirmed.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does she agree with the advice from her Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that stated: “Establishing landowners as the principal owners of emission units would provide the strongest incentives to protect and enhance sinks and plant new sinks. This would be absent if all emission units were retained by the Government.”,

and given that that is what her Government is now proposing to do, will she accept responsibility for record levels of deforestation?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Advice is simply that. It is not written on tablets of stone, and it may or may not be agreed with. As the member is well aware, the rate of new planting tracks very closely the rate of return in forestry, which sadly in recent years has been rather down.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can this Prime Minister have the audacity to open the parliamentary year with the promise of New Zealand becoming carbon neutral, when her Government’s policy on forestry, which has such a huge impact on New Zealand’s carbon balance, is driving record levels of deforestation, and the Anglican Church describes it as a “horror scenario”, the Independent newspaper describes it as a “chainsaw massacre”, and when Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officials are now predicting 170,000 hectares of deforestation?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: If the member has a magic wand to wave on how to improve forestry prices, I would be very pleased to hear about it. Also, I would be pleased to see anything that amounted to a policy on these issues from the National Party. But when the leader says it is a hoax to talk about climate change in the middle of 2005, and then 2½ years later says he has always believed that it was a problem, can we be surprised that National has no policy?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did she seek advice from US President George Bush, at her meeting and lunch, on how New Zealand could better constrain emissions, noting that United Nations figures show that since she has been Prime Minister, and George Bush has been President, New Zealand emissions have been growing at 2.5 times the rate of those in the US, and does she see an irony in these figures, given her Government’s critical comment on the US policies on climate change?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Years of record economic growth under a Labour Government have of course, on the old patterns of development and energy supply, meant that we have had some Kyoto issues. I am very happy for us to continue collaborating with the United States on climate change. Indeed, since the 2003 partnership with the US on climate change was signed, more than 30 scientific projects have seen us collaborate on how we reduce emissions, get new technologies up, and improve energy efficiency.

Questions to Members

Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill—Reasonable Force Amendment

1. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Member in Charge of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill: Will she discharge her bill if it is amended to allow reasonable force for the purpose of correction?

SUE BRADFORD (Member in Charge of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill): Yes.

Chester Borrows: Does she stand by the comments she has made all the way through the debate that her bill will prohibit smacking, or does she now put political expediency before principle and agree with the Prime Minister that the bill will not prohibit smacking?

SUE BRADFORD: The bill is not a ban on smacking. Smacking is already illegal under section 194 of the Crimes Act, relating to assaults on children.

Madam SPEAKER: I will take one more supplementary question, and Gordon Copeland was on his feet first.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: You can have a point of order, but the normal practice is that two supplementary questions can be asked on questions to members.

Peter Brown: I respectfully draw to the Speaker’s attention that normal practice is to give the first call to the senior party in this House. New Zealand First has seven members, as against United Future’s three.

Madam SPEAKER: That would be the case, except that the member of the senior party did not rise first. Gordon Copeland rose first.

Peter Brown: I seek leave, therefore, to ask a supplementary question to the member.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Gordon Copeland: Will the member be introducing an amendment to her bill to make it clear that taking a child to time out will not be a criminal offence, given her public statement that that matter could and would be ironed out in the Committee stage, or is it her intention that time out for the purpose of correction should be a criminal offence?

SUE BRADFORD: In response to the first part of the question, no. In relation to the second part, I say an amendment was already made in the select committee process—and it is part of the amended bill before the House today—that makes it clear that actions like putting a child into a room for time out will be covered by a reasonable force defence.

Peter Brown: How does the member reconcile her answer to the principal question that she has just been asked with her earlier statement in the House, whilst we were debating the need or otherwise for a referendum, that Parliament must decide the outcome of the bill?

Madam SPEAKER: Perhaps the member would like to clarify his question, for the benefit of members of the House. [Interruption] Let the member ask his question.

Peter Brown: During the debate on the commencement date, Sue Bradford took a call and said that she would not accept a public referendum because it was the obligation and responsibility of Parliament to decide the outcome of this bill. Yet we heard her answer here that if she does not get the outcome she likes or wants, she will withdraw the bill. How is that democracy?

SUE BRADFORD: I have no objection to anyone in this country organising signatures for a referendum. What I said earlier in the House was that I believe that the parliamentary process is the process of our democracy and that we, as members of Parliament, have every right to continue with that process.

Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Point of order, Gordon Copeland.

Peter Brown: That is OK; that is OK.

Madam SPEAKER: You have to be quicker on your feet, I think.

Gordon Copeland: I seek the leave of the House to table a document in which Ms Bradford is quoted as saying that she will sort out the issue around time out during the Committee stage of this bill.

Leave granted.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I notice that your ruling has now been given twice this afternoon. Can I take it as gospel that you will not take a call from any member of Parliament who is not the fastest to get to his or her feet, at all? I have on many occasions seen a call be awarded to members out of turn or when they were not as quick to get to their feet as another member.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. It is the first member who catches—please be seated; I am on my feet.

Peter Brown: Am I not big enough to catch your eye?

Madam SPEAKER: That is true, actually. But if you are slow, then it is a bit difficult. The first member who catches my eye gets the call, and on occasion one does get out of order. That happens to members of all parties, because people are sometimes preoccupied with matters other than the business before the House.

ENDS

© Scoop Media