Questions to Ministers

SuperGold Card—Microchip Technology

1. BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to the Associate Minister for Senior Citizens: Has he received any recent reports regarding the potential future use of microchip technology in the SuperGold card for seniors due for release in August?

Madam SPEAKER: I understand that that the answer will be longer—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, that is the next one.

Madam SPEAKER: The next one—that is all right.

Gerry Brownlee: Oh! What have you cooked up?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: We know it is the next question, because the questioner is entitled to two questions. Hs the member got it? He has been here a long time; he should know that.

Madam SPEAKER: Would members be seated for a second, please. I raised that matter because this House can run in an orderly fashion only if people are aware of what is happening. So I ask members, when one is trying to be helpful and to assist the House, not to express themselves in the way they did.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that. In the interests of the running of the House, maybe, with leave, Mr Peters could ask the question himself and then answer it. That would help enormously.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, and it is close to bringing the House into disorder.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are we to understand that the Minister has come to you and said that the answer to the first supplementary question will be longer than expected? That would be most unusual.

Madam SPEAKER: What happens, as the member well knows, is that, as a measure of courtesy to the Speaker, those who are replying to questions from time to time indicate that the answers are going to be long, so that they are not interrupted. The member who is asking the question in fact indicated that to my office, and whether it was in relation to the main question or the supplementary question is irrelevant.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Associate Minister for Senior Citizens): I was asked as to recent reports on microchip technology in respect of the SuperGold card. My answer is yes. I have seen hysterical reports that make all sorts of fanciful claims about what might occur if microchip technology were to be adopted as part of the SuperGold card for seniors. Those reports are not only negligent for scaremongering over an extremely positive measure for our seniors but are ignorant of both the facts and the processes involved. This is not a sci-fi fantasy or Dancing with the Stars. It is real life.

Barbara Stewart: Can the Minister allay the fears of our seniors, in relation to any future use of microchip technology?

Rodney Hide: Is this the long one or the short one?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, we know what the short one is. Yes, I can—for three very simple reasons. First, any move towards microchip technology would involve a thorough review by both the Privacy Commissioner and the State Services Commission. Microchip technology is not being slipped in secretly in the dead of night.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Are they the same microchips as for dogs?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In the member’s case, yes. Second, for the past 2 years all New Zealand passports have used microchip technology, which has safeguards to protect the privacy and integrity of the information the microchips store. Microchip technology is used for the security passes that all members of Parliament use for their own personal security. But some members would now deny that security to the elderly of this country. The third thing I want to say is that microchip technology will be replacing magnetic strip and barcode technology in the near future, across a range of industries. If the SuperGold card is to be functional in the future, it will require this technology, after all the necessary checks have been made by the Privacy Commissioner and others. I conclude by saying that we have no desire to see information relating to our seniors be abused or misused. We want the strongest protections possible, to ensure that that does not happen. In short, the checks are already in place and will be utilised to protect the integrity of the card.

Judy Turner: Does the Minister understand the concerns expressed by MMP parties in this Parliament that the use of microchip technology by Government departments should be given wider consideration by organisations such as the Law Commission and the Privacy Commissioner before being introduced on an ad hoc basis into legislation such as the SuperGold card?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I understand what the member is asking. By way of further explanation, my answer is yes. But in terms of the timing for this introduction—it being a long way into the future—

Hon Maurice Williamson: You opposed it for drivers’ licences.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Opposed what?

Hon Maurice Williamson: The microchip.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, I did not.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Yes, you did.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh no, I did not.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Yes, you did.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, sorry! That member came back from Queenstown, having seen the local bodies at the local body conference, and told us all that they were all for this technology, which would have had the certain outcome of six companies owning all the roads in New Zealand. That is why I opposed it. I am just putting the facts on the table.

Hon David Carter: Chipmunk!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I say to that member he should look in the mirror and tell me who looks like a chipmunk. He is not saying very much now. I tell the United Future member that I understand her concerns. That is why I wrote to the Law Society to say that its first impression was correct and that its codicil, or rider, to its submissions was grossly incorrect and negligent on its part. I am still waiting for a reply from the Law Society—the august group with which I have some familiarity.

Barbara Stewart: Will the card have microchips in it when it is launched in August?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, it will not. The clause relating to microchips is aimed at future-proofing the card for the time when magnetic strips and barcode technology become redundant. With the banks and retailers moving towards microchip technology as we speak, we need to ensure that seniors do not miss out on the full range of commercial discounts that will become available in the future. As I say again, the privacy and sanctity of people’s private lives is something that is foremost in the minds of members of my party and of the Government at this point in time, and the fear and scaremongering by some members is blatantly just that. It is without any substance whatsoever.

Russell Fairbrother: When can seniors, such as the members of Napier’s Grey Power, look forward to receiving their SuperGold card?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As noted earlier, seniors such as Grey Power members and the former leader of the National Party—

Darren Hughes: Which one?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I will receive the card when I turn 65—a very long time away from now, as is obvious.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Is the Minister saying he is not yet 65?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, well, who has lost his hair—or, rather, grown through it? These cards will be launched in August. In addition to the range of Government benefits on offer, the Ministry of Social Development currently has a team negotiating with commercial entities to provide a range of discounts. I urge members, please, to let the elderly know what is coming, because it is all good news. I ask members over there to be quiet for a little while, as I explain what will happen in August. The Ministry of Social Development currently has a team negotiating with commercial entities to provide a range of discounts. Although we cannot name names at this stage due to commercial sensitivities, I can say that we are confident of a range of significant commercial discounts.

Judith Collins: When New Zealanders refused to support the microchipping of dogs, why does the Minister now want to microchip our seniors for a discount card?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: You know, people would think that someone who got herself ensconced in the gambling industry prior to coming here to Parliament would know something about technology, would they not? They would think she might know about it. People will not have a microchip in a personal sense, other than to carry it—which many do now with their passports, and as that member does right now, to ensure her security in this Parliament. Some would wonder why, but she does have it. To make the kind of claim that the microchip will somehow be inside a person is false and irresponsible, but is becoming, unfortunately, typical of the member.

Madam SPEAKER: Keith Locke—[Interruption] Order, please, so we can hear the member’s question.

Keith Locke: To reassure Judith Collins, would the Minister agree that he would intend to microchip only dangerous and menacing pensioners; and would the comparison the Minister makes between the passport microchips and the microchips on the SuperGold cards cause concern to those pensioners, because the passport microchips have facial recognition data on them? Is this microchipping perhaps the thin end of the wedge to the use of such technology on Government-issued ID cards, and should he not wait for a Government inquiry before legislating for its implementation?

Madam SPEAKER: There are several questions there.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I get the gist of what the member is saying. Let me just say there was once a time in this country when the hard left could claim validly to have some concern for the poor and less well-off in our society. That member has demonstrated he has long abandoned that cause, in a political sense. To stand here and make ridiculous claims, and to laugh at something that has been discussed with the elderly as being a long-range benefit to them, is to—[Interruption]—no—to own up to where things have got with the Green Party. Those members would rather rush around protecting worms and snails than to look after the elderly, 540,000 of whom live in this country.

Dr Nick Smith: Is the Minister aware that officials advised the select committee that the microchip technology was not needed for the SuperGold card, and that they did not know what specific purposes it might be used for but that they might like it at some time in the future; and is it not appropriate for Parliament to consider legislation for that microchipping when we actually know what the reason for it is, rather than give officials a blank cheque for the future through which to collect data on our superannuitants?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There are many future developments that the elderly of this country will wish to avail themselves of, and they will hope that the politicians of this country have been modern enough in their approach to prepare the policies and provisions for them well in advance.

Hon Member: Such as?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Such as? As we speak, all the banks are moving to use microchips. I do not recall any of those members saying anything about the banks doing that. The passports of this country have a microchip now. I do not recall one member protesting about that. But, of course, for some cheap political advantage—which they will never get because the elderly are wise to them—those members are prepared to get up and make some claim that we are microchipping the elderly, when clearly we are not. The most important part about this technology is that we will not go any further with it until the Privacy Commissioner, the State Services Commissioner, and the elderly are happy with this advance. But why would we want to waste years getting legislation through Parliament, when we know now that the commercial world is moving rapidly to that state of affairs?

Heather Roy: In light of that answer, is the Minister aware that Ministry of Social Development officials advised the Social Services Committee that deleting the provision for microchips would have “no immediate consequences for the launch and implementation of the SuperGold card”; why is his adviser Damian Edwards telling senior citizens in the New Zealand Herald today that this card has to have the microchip in order to be functional, and why is the microchip being foisted on our old people with a lie?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because my office sought to respond to misinformation purveyed by that member. That member knows full well that we have referred to a whole range of future benefits, many of which will not be able to be otherwise obtained from various service sectors or industries because those industries have microchip technology. We have to, likewise, have that technology available in the long term. Most important, we are doing something not just for tomorrow but for the next 10, 20, 50, and 100 years. That is a fact. In discussion with my officials, I have asked them to ensure that we do not just take steps now that will see us having to rush back to Parliament, possibly by December of this year, to fix the matter up. Let me just say to National members that as they have demonstrably let the old people down, I think they should retire, fly a white flag, and quit while they are behind.

Rodney Hide: That was a very, very long reply, but the question was actually about why this microchip is being foisted on old people with a lie—because that is what is happening here. The microchip is not needed for the launch of the card. I am sure the Minister would like to respond to the question of why his office is lying to old people.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I overlook the obvious defamation and insult from that member—he is known for it. The fact is that my office responded to misinformation that was being purveyed by Heather Roy MP. I told her that in my answer, and the second thing is that I pointed out why the microchip needed to be considered now.

Madam SPEAKER: I listened very carefully, and the Minister certainly addressed the question.

Heather Roy: I seek leave of the House to table the article from this morning’s New Zealand Herald where it is reported that Mr Peters’ office told senior citizens that this card needed a microchip.

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

Heather Roy: I seek leave of the House to table the select committee report where the Ministry of Social Development officials said that this card did not need a microchip.

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

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table the New Zealand Law Society’s submission to the select committee on the bill, which talks about—

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to make it very clear—because this may help the future working of the House—that we are objecting to the tabling of the documents because the information is readily publicly available. This should be a privilege.

Madam SPEAKER: That is a matter of debate and there have been plenty of opportunities to discuss that.

Economy—Operating Balance Surpluses

2. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Finance: What is the cumulative total of any operating balance surpluses between 2000 and 2006?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): The cumulative operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes figure over the 7 years is $35.5 billion. That has enabled us to reduce net debt by $13.7 billion and invest $9.9 billion in the Superannuation Fund, and, particularly over the last 2 or 3 years when exchange rate has been high and monetary policy has been tightening, fiscal policy has continued to lean against inflation.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is the IMF wrong when it states in its recent analysis of the New Zealand economy, released publicly this month, that the fiscal surplus has risen to levels well above that required to meet his fiscal objectives; if the IMF is not wrong, is this further evidence of the consistent over-taxation of New Zealand workers and businesses by his Government?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I would remind the member that yesterday his party’s spokesperson on finance asked me a question about the same report, which suggested that we should actually be maintaining a large fiscal surplus at the present time. It would be helpful if the National Party could get its position on macroeconomic management consistent from one day to the next.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Standing Orders require the Minister to address the question and not make comments about other members of this House. My question was very clear: is the IMF wrong when it states in its recent analysis, released this month, that the fiscal surplus has risen to levels well above that required to meet his fiscal objectives; if the IMF is not wrong, is this further evidence of the consistent over-taxation of New Zealand workers and businesses by his Government? It was a very clear question. The House deserves an answer.

Madam SPEAKER: I thought the Minister did address the question. He did make other comments, but they were in response. But that was addressing the question.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Why, given periods of low inflation and high surpluses, has he not taken the opportunity to cut taxes in any of his Budgets over the past 7 years?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have. I invite the member to read the Budgets again. There were substantial cuts to business taxation and there were the Working for Families tax credits, which mean we now have the second-lowest tax wedge on the average wage for a family with two kids in the developed world. I also invite the member to read the IMF report more closely about the difference between the fiscal issues and the macroeconomic issues. He clearly has not read that part of the report.

Charles Chauvel: What reports has the Minister seen on the impact of announcing large-scale tax cuts in a macroeconomic climate such as ours?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen a report from Bloomberg this morning, which particularly relates to yesterday’s question, confirming what many commentators expected. The market has now priced in an almost certain interest rate rise in Australia following the tax cuts announced in this week’s Australian Budget, and that is the actual differential between the Australian and New Zealand exchange rate movements. I do not believe that either homeowners or exporters want higher interest rates in New Zealand, which would follow from large-scale tax cuts in this year’s Budget—which Mr English has been rejecting for the last 3 weeks.

R Doug Woolerton: Have the surpluses been earmarked for future services and projects, and are these surpluses likely to extend to future years?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think the first point to note is very important. The operating surplus includes the transfers to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and the earnings in the Superannuation Fund. We need to run an operating surplus of approximately 3 percent of GDP simply to keep gross debt to GDP ratio constant. That amounts to the sum of $5 billion a year in the size of the current economy. Above that, the surplus is above what is required to meet the debt target. But they were required for macroeconomic management, which is what has happened in the last 2 years.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is the IMF wrong when, in its recent analysis of the New Zealand economy, it recommends shifting towards greater tax reductions and smaller expenditure increases; if so, why is the IMF wrong with that recommendation?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not disagree with this; this is where there is a legitimate case for discussion about whether one has tax cuts or Government spending. I note that Business New Zealand today actually said what those cuts in Government spending should be in order to have a smaller size of Government—which Mr English will not tell us. It nominated the following: first, income and asset test New Zealand superannuation; second, cut Working for Families; third, cut the rates rebate scheme; and, fourth, put interest back on student loans. I thank Business New Zealand for telling us what National’s secret agenda actually is.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: After 5 consecutive years of tax reductions in the Budgets of the Minister’s Australian counterpart, is it correct that the net after-tax income of a person working at the average hourly wage in Australia has risen by 33.6 percent, while the after-tax income of a New Zealander working at the average hourly wage has increased by only 18.9 percent?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Economic growth in the two countries has been roughly similar. The main differential movement has been in terms of gross wages. That has been because Australia had more union power, pushing gross wages up. The right-wing Government in Australia has now changed that situation. The National Party has actually promised to loosen New Zealand’s labour market, not tighten it.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How is it that the Minister’s Australian counterpart has been able to both increase spending and reduce taxes every year over the past 5 years, while the Minister has been able to only increase spending?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That is not true. Indeed, there will be tables in the Budget summarising what has happened on taxation over the last few years, showing significant reductions in both business taxation and in taxation on savings, and an increase in tax credits for low to middle income families. Those people who have children and are on modest incomes very much appreciate it. I keep on getting stopped in the street by people thanking me for Working for Families. I do not expect Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to thank me for that.

Tertiary Education—Quality

3. Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What is the Government doing to ensure high-quality tertiary education and training?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education): I have recently announced—last week and today—increased funding, including $127 million over 4 years for the institutes of technology, polytechnic industry training, and wānanga sectors; $129 million for the university sector; and a further $199.5 million for the whole sector. Together with the tertiary reform legislation this will ensure the tertiary education sector fulfils New Zealand’s needs and provides better value for money for taxpayers and for students.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: How do these announcements show that the Government is achieving value for money in the tertiary education sector?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Much of the money available for this investment has come through savings in other tertiary education spending. We have been able to engage in that reinvestment because our reforms have stopped the out-of-control expenditure inherited from National’s failed experiments in uncapped tertiary education funding driven by student choice.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Does the Minister consider that sufficient time is allowed for those tertiary education organisations, which confront significant variation in funding, to respond to that variation, given that the Tertiary Education Commission board of commissioners will not consider the plans until October or November 2007, and funding will occur in January 2008 according to the Tertiary Education Commission’s investment guidance document?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think that it is true that the final sign-off will be late this year. We have already released the investment guidance, and there have been extensive meetings with the sector on its implications. Discussions between the Tertiary Education Commission and the tertiary education organisations will take place starting at the end of this month. So the organisations will have a much earlier indication of likely funding than the final sign-off would indicate.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Could the Minister explain to the House the purpose of the tripartite forum process and how it has been operating?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The purpose of the tripartite forum is to look at improvements to quality and at upskilling within the university sector, particularly at how it is possible to lift relative incomes amongst the academic staff, given that over a long period of time these have tended to fall behind and have put us at a disadvantage in terms of international comparisons. Both last year and this year we have been able to feed some extra money into the university sector with the assurance that that will flow through into salaries.

Question No. 4 to Minister

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I am pleased that Dr Cullen has finished his answer to the previous question. He has managed to put his Associate Minister of Finance to sleep. [Interruption] Have a look down there. How is that?

Madam SPEAKER: Members know that, when they are asking questions, if they preface them with comments that are irrelevant to the question, it is likely to cause disorder. Would the member please just ask his question.

Electricity—Supply

4. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Energy: Is he confident that New Zealand will get through this winter without a repeat of the electricity crises seen in 1992 and 2003?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Minister of Energy): As confident as one could possibly be.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that the 30-day rolling average for water storage inflows shows that April 2007 was worse than April 2002—almost as bad as April 1992—and that the Meteorological Service is predicting La Niña weather patterns, meaning little rain and much less supply of hydroelectricity this winter?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is certainly true that the inflows over the last 2 or 3 months have been below average, but they started from a much stronger level at the end of the year. Actual lake storage levels at the moment are not much below the average for a normal year.

Maryan Street: Has the Minister received any recent reports on electricity generation capacity in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have received reports of significant progress on the new, more efficient E3P plant at Huntly. That, of course, will give us much greater thermal reserve capacity this winter than we have had previously. Of course, the National Party opposed the agreement between shareholding Ministers and Genesis that enabled E3P to be constructed.

Gerry Brownlee: Can he confirm that security of supply for 2007 will depend on the successful commissioning of E3P at Huntly, with the consequence that not only the Huntly coal-fired station but also the new gas turbine will run at full capacity; does he expect that this year thermal generation will beat last year’s record year for thermal generation; and how does that fit with the Government’s carbon dioxide emissions strategy for carbon neutrality?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If the member thinks he can predict rainfall for the next few months, good on him. Predictions of long-term rainfall measures are often wrong. If there is sufficient rain, then that will not happen; if rainfall levels remain low, we now have much larger reserve capacity, thanks to the decisions taken by this Government. But I do note that the status of the official risk meter put out by the Electricity Commission on 6 May—the latest—is still at low.

Gerry Brownlee: Why have so many renewable energy projects fallen over in the last 7 years; of all the new generation that has come on stream over the last 7 years, how much is renewable and how much is thermal; and if he is able to give us an accurate answer, how has that particular statistic helped the Government think it can get to carbon neutrality?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not have that statistic. However, the member is incorrect in his assertion. The main renewable project that fell over was Project Aqua, and it was actually opposed by the local National Party candidate.

Peter Brown: In the event that a crisis situation does appear on the horizon, can the Minister give the House an assurance that, in the first instance, the Minister would call for, in ample time, voluntary restraint, so that New Zealanders could save of their own accord, and, in the second instance, if the situation worsened, would go to some lengths to provide financial incentives to encourage people to reduce their power usage?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Obviously, we monitor the situation. In fact, Cabinet continues to receive a report on both inflows and the reserve capacity on a weekly basis. It is far too early at this point to consider whether there is any risk of a serious crisis. The problems is, of course, that if we call wolf too early and nothing happens, then the next time we call wolf people will take no notice, so it is a matter of judgment. I emphasise again that the Electricity Commission has the risk meter at low at the present time. Mr Brownlee thinks he knows more than the Electricity Commission; I think that is something only Mr Brownlee believes.

Gerry Brownlee: We will see. Can the Minister confirm that the Waitaki catchment now holds only 68 percent of its historical average for this time of year, and that that level has dropped more than 25 percent in the last month, putting us now within 500 gigawatt hours of the operational minzone, at which point this country will face blackouts?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I can confirm that storage levels are below average for the time of year, but, at the present time, not by the kind of margin across the entire system that the member is implying. There is not a serious risk at this point. I emphasise again that compared with last year the major difference, of course, is that E3P is coming on stream very soon, and is a very significant addition to power capacity.

Gerry Brownlee: Has the Minister seen the Transpower website entitled Grid New Zealand, which is an easily accessible information tool telling us about Transpower’s projects, both those in construction and those that are held up; if so, would he consider putting up on the website of the Government’s Electricity Commission a site perhaps called “Gridlock New Zealand” in honour of the commission’s delayed backlog of decisions, which has meant that renewable energy has not developed in this country at the level it should have over the last 7 years?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member seems to have shifted from the Electricity Commission to Transpower in that question, and they are two completely different bodies. If the member is referring to—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can I read the question again? The Minister clearly did not hear it.

Madam SPEAKER: Succinctly, please.

Gerry Brownlee: Has he noted that anyone can go to the Transpower website called Grid New Zealand and see a list of projects held up by the Electricity Commission; if so, will he consider putting up on the Electricity Commission website a page called “Gridlock New Zealand” in honour of its backlog of decisions, which has contributed to a very, very low level of renewable energy being developed in this country over the last 7 years?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Electricity Commission is not holding up renewable energy projects, at all. There are difficulties at times with the planning process. I have yet to hear from the MP for Otago whether she supports the major wind power projects in Otago—there are a number of them—at the present time. I suspect she does not. I note that the major opposition to the upgrade of the North Island transmission line was, in fact, led by Judith Collins and Paul Hutchison.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order is to indicate that the Minister has misled the House again today. Jacqui Dean was, in fact, on the local authority that voted for Project Aqua, but the then member for Otago, David Parker, voted strongly against it.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. It is a matter of debate, as the member well knows.

Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei Claim

5. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: E whakapono ana a ia ki ngā kaimahi o Te Tari Whakatau take e Pā ana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi me te Tari Ture o te Karauna kei te tohutohu i a ia mō ngā whakataunga i raro i te Tiriti, i runga hoki i ngā patapatai a Carrie Wainright te heamana tuarua, tiati hoki o te Taraipiunara o Waitangi e whakawā ana i ngā tono a Ngāti Whātua, arā, he aha ai “i tawhitia”, “i whakarapaina” rānei ētahi pepa whaimana, ā, “he mahi kanga, he mahi whakahāwea ēnei i ngā kaitono”?

[Does he have confidence in the staff from the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Crown Law Office, who advise him on Treaty settlements, in light of questions from deputy chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal, Judge Carrie Wainwright, in the case of the Ngati Whatua o Orakei Treaty of Waitangi claim as to why documents were “overlooked”; why several historical assessments and internal memos were “withheld”, which left “claimants insulted and disregarded”?]

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Yes. I am assured that the decision about the provision of documents was made as a genuine exercise of judgment and in good faith. I cannot say that I have the same confidence in the cut-and-paste question the member put together, and in the quotes that were taken out of context and that misrepresented what the judge actually said on three different occasions, at three different times.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What consideration has been given to removing the Office of Treaty Settlements from the Ministry of Justice and placing it within the Prime Minister’s office, to ensure that an all-of-Government approach is achieved in Treaty settlements; if there has been none, why not?

Hon MARK BURTON: No consideration has been given to that, because an all-of-Government approach is taken to Treaty settlements.

Christopher Finlayson: Is the Minister aware of the statement made by the previous Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Margaret Wilson, that the Government would pay special attention to cross-claim issues; if so, how does withholding from an urgent hearing of the Waitangi Tribunal advice by senior policy analyst Peter Hodge that “lack of commitment to conferring with cross-claimants is a serious concern”, and that the Crown’s negotiating behaviour involves “considerable legal risk for both parties”, enhance trust among cross-claimant parties towards the Crown?

Hon MARK BURTON: Because, as I said to the member, amongst the nearly 250 documents that the Crown released through the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Crown Law Office, the documents he refers to were not initially considered to be relevant to the inquiry, as their primary content was considered to be either outside the scope of the inquiry or significantly superseded by later advice in documents.

Pita Paraone: What assurances can the Minister give that previously settled Treaty claims have not been affected by the Crown’s withholding and suppressing relevant documents, and what redress is available to claimants if such actions have taken place?

Hon MARK BURTON: I can certainly assure the member that, as in this case, the officials have acted in good faith. I take some confidence from Judge Wainwright’s view that notwithstanding this, the tribunal will proceed because it is clearly of the view that this will not materially undermine the decision.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What thought has been given towards establishing an independent settlements authority, which would overcome the problems described by lawyer Paul Majurey of a two-way Crown view, to ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done?

Hon MARK BURTON: I am not convinced that such a change would achieve anything of substance.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Is the Minister aware of comments from the deputy chair of the tribunal, Carrie Wainwright, that Crown Law was playing games with the disclosure process, and of the response from Crown Law staff member Virginia Hardy that there had been an error of judgment, and is he prepared to tolerate such errors of judgment as par for the course of the Treaty settlement process; if so, why?

Hon MARK BURTON: I am clearly aware of the comment. I referred to it in the first answer that I gave.

Hon Tony Ryall: This is a cover-up for your friends.

Hon MARK BURTON: Oh, for goodness’ sake. Mr Ryall should grow up. No error is ever desirable, but I suggest to the member that any organisation that could claim never to have an error in judgment, let alone an error of any sort, simply is not credible. What I can say is that I have confidence of a very high standard of work, and a high commitment to ethical behaviour, on behalf of that organisation.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I seek leave to table an article of 27 April 2007 entitled “Two-way Crown view adds to Treaty delay”.

Leave granted.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I seek leave also to table an article of 5 May 2007: “Flak flies over Treaty secrets” in the New Zealand Herald.

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

Television New Zealand—Charter

6. Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Broadcasting: What has the TVNZ charter delivered for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting: The Television New Zealand (TVNZ) charter has some 10 objectives within it. I am advised that TVNZ delivers to those objectives and produces a range of programmes consistent with those objectives, and screens a range of programmes consistent with those objectives.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Has the Minister seen the New Zealand On Air 2006 television local content report, and how does he explain the fact that since the implementation of the TVNZ charter, the total local content hours on both Television One and TV2 have been in steady decline, with 12 percent less local content on Television One and 20 percent less local content on TV2 in 2006, as compared with 2002; and would the Minister expect the charter to deliver more or less local content on TVNZ?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I make two points. TVNZ’s own statement in relation to these matters is: “We operate in both a local and international framework. Our mission is to bring you more and better of New Zealand On Air, as well as the best from around the world.” In fact, Television One now averages 67 hours of local content a week, compared with an average of 49 hours a week under the last National Government, which is an increase of 36 percent.

Darien Fenton: What has the Government’s broadcasting policy delivered for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Government’s broadcasting policy has delivered nearly double the hours of local content on free-to-air television, double the hours of New Zealand music on radio, the launch of digital free-to-air television, a strong and competitive screen production sector, the Māori Television Service, and the Pacific Island radio network, to name just a few.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Will the Minister admit that his broadcasting policy and the TVNZ charter is actually delivering a year-on-year decline in the amount of local content being shown on Television New Zealand?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is correct that in recent times there has been a slight fall, but the average is still significantly higher than it was under the National Government. It has not been year-on-year. That is not actually correct, and I suggest the member reads the graph a little more carefully.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Why did the Minister say in his press statement following the release of the New Zealand On Air report that: “This proves that all of New Zealand’s national free-to-air TV channels are boosting local content,”; why did he deliberately mislead the public by creating the impression that local content was going up on TVNZ when, in fact, it is very obviously going down?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That press statement refers to New Zealand’s free-to-air television. In 1999 free-to-air television carried 6,142 hours of New Zealand content. In the last year it carried 10,255.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Does the Minister realise that when he tries to fudge the figures on local TV content, just as when he refuses to say how many children will have access to 20 free hours, and just as when he continues to spin-doctor the serious problems with the National Certificate of Educational Achievement, it just reinforces for the public John Tamihere’s view that: “You can spend 2 hours with Maharey and walk away none the wiser, but you’ve got three screeds of paper full of notes.”?

Madam SPEAKER: I will call the Minister, but that question was substantially out of order in the imputations that were made. The substance of the question was out of order—that is what leads to disorder, if you read the Standing Orders—but I call the Hon Dr Michael Cullen.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I would much rather take my colleague the Minister’s views on life than those of somebody who blows smoke in women’s faces and has a punch-up in public.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, the answer matched the question.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: When the Minister says that the Government is committed to the core objective of building national identity and will do so through television, does he not realise that New Zealanders do not want to be told by the Government what their identity is, and that using a State-owned broadcaster to try to shape national identity is actually a feature of totalitarian regimes, not Western democracies; or does he secretly fancy himself as the “MP for Palmerston North Korea”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If we were a totalitarian regime, it would be hard to understand why an ex - National Party candidate co-hosts a breakfast TV programme.

Madam SPEAKER: We are getting close again to having question time in silence, and that can be painful.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table the 2006 local content survey, showing that not only did the percentage of news and current affairs—

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. I remind members that they just identify the document; they do not read from it.

Ambulance Services—Deaths and Single-crewed Ambulances

7. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Health: Have any New Zealanders died over the last 5 years because an emergency call-out was responded to by a single-crewed ambulance with insufficient staff to treat a patient adequately and transport the patient to hospital; if so, how many?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Health): I am advised by the Ministry of Health that no report it holds has single crewing as the primary cause of death. However, the more services and facilities that are available, of course the better it will be, and those services are being progressively provided and improved.

Sue Kedgley: Is it not true that the Government has absolutely no idea how many people are dying or becoming disabled as a result of single crewing, because it monitors only ambulance response times and has no record of whether an ambulance arrived singled crewed and could treat and transport a patient properly, or was single crewed and the patient died as a result of that; if not, why not?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I can only repeat that the Ministry of Health has no information that a single-crewed ambulance was the single or major cause of any death. If the member has that information, she should provide it. What I can say is that the present level of double crewing, at 82 percent of call-outs, is the highest it has been, to my knowledge, in the history of St John Ambulance, and the Government is committed to advancing that to 100 percent just as soon as it is possible to do so.

Lesley Soper: What changes have been introduced in the ambulance services over the past 3 years?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: The Government has provided considerable extra funding over the last 3 years, to achieve the present level of at least 82 percent of call-outs being double crewed. We have to remember, I advise the House, that there are 700 full-time professional St John Ambulance officers, and there are 2,500 volunteers. It is the organisation of those volunteers, particularly in rural areas, that provides major difficulties. But there has been extra funding for 67 full-time staff equivalents, and, as I say, the growth of the service towards double crewing by professional and qualified officers is increasing regularly.

Sue Kedgley: Can he explain to the House how an ambulance officer is expected to drive an ambulance while at the same time providing adequate treatment to a patient in an emergency, as ambulance officers had to do in about 50,000 emergency ambulance call-outs last year?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Common sense would tell me that that is impossible, and it is not required or expected.

Sue Kedgley: Further to the Minister’s answer, is the Minister aware that last year approximately 50,000 emergency calls were responded to by single-crewed ambulances and that in March this year 70 percent of all emergency call-outs in the central North Island were responded to with single crews—in breach of the national standard—and does he think it is fair that the chance of someone in a life-threatening situation getting proper treatment depends on where that person lives?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: My advice is that the national standard is that best endeavours will be made to have double-crewed ambulances. As I have advised the House, at the moment that level is 82 percent. I can also advise the House that there has been increased funding each year for the last 3 years for this service—averaging between 8 and 10 percent a year—67 extra full-time equivalent paid ambulance officers, as I said, and significant investment in three new technologically advanced ambulance communication centres. This Government is doing more to assist the St John Ambulance service than any other Government has done in recent memory.

Nathan Guy: Why did the Minister of Health tell the House last week that at least 82 percent of ambulance call-outs are double crewed, and that as better data becomes available it may prove the number to be higher than that, when the data supplied to me by Horowhenua ambulance staff on the ground shows that 50 percent of call-outs are single crewed; what is the Minister doing to ensure that lives are not put at risk in Horowhenua, or does he not care about that?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: It may come as a surprise to the member, but the St John Ambulance service operates outside Horowhenua as well as there. The Minister was replying on the basis that 82 percent of the national service provided by St John Ambulance is double crewed. I have already indicated to the House that in rural areas, where it also has to rely on volunteers to assist with the crewing of St John Ambulances, there has also been—and still is—some difficulty. The Government is moving, with improved funding, to increase that 82 percent figure in all areas.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a document showing that on 2 March a 56-year-old man in cardiac arrest was attended to by a single-crewed ambulance and the patient died.

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

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a document showing that on 15 March a 76-year-old man had a cardiac arrest, was attended to by a single-crewed vehicle, and the patient died.

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

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a document showing that on 26 March a 64-year-old female was attended to by a single-crewed ambulance and the patient died.

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

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a document showing that a man dying from a crash in 2003 died after a single-crewed ambulance was unable to take the badly injured man to hospital—

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

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a document showing that an Auckland man died after a bee sting, when the single-crewed ambulance that attended him—

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

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a chart showing that in the Horowhenua area in March, 70 percent of the ambulances that responded to emergencies were single crewed.

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

Police—Confidence in Management

8. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Police: Is she satisfied with the performance of police management; if so, why?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police): In general, yes.

Chester Borrows: Can the Minister confirm the statement issued by police at 2.34 this afternoon that the Hamilton police officer lying in hospital after being stabbed four times in the torso yesterday had not been issued with a stab-proof vest but had been only measured for one; and in light of the mismanagement of the roll-out of these vests how can she hide behind the excuse that this is an operational matter, when clearly it is a matter of life and death?

Hon ANNETTE KING: First of all, I would like to express my deep regret at the stabbing of an officer in Hamilton. I wish him a speedy recovery. I say also that I deeply regret that the stab-proof body armour is not available for all front-line officers at this stage. The project has been dogged by problems and delays. I wish the police could enact this programme as fast as possible, but mistakes have been made along the way that the police must take responsibility for—and they do. I say to the member that I hide behind nobody, as Minister. I front the issues. Hiding might have been the action of past Governments, but it is certainly not the action of this Government to hide behind anybody, even though the member is quite big enough to hide behind.

Jill Pettis: What is the latest information the Minister has received on yesterday’s claim by Mr Brownlee that the two Dominion Post reporters did not report the alleged incident of the rifle in the back of the car to the police at the time, because, as Mr Brownlee said: “The police were not too far from where they are, and they thought they”—meaning the police—“could see it.”?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I have received some very interesting information, which raises questions about the truth of Mr Brownlee’s assertions yesterday. Wanganui police early today asked to interview the two reporters concerned, to discover more detail about what they may or may not have seen. So far, no official response has apparently been received from the Dominion Post, but it does seem that the reporter who wrote the story and reported seeing the rifle in the back seat now apparently claims not to have seen such an incident. It may have been reported to him second-hand by the photographer. It also seems that the photographer may not have seen any gun—if one actually existed—on the back seat of the car, either, but rather saw one in the boot. I said yesterday that Gerry Brownlee made it up, but time will tell and I will keep the House informed.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to apologise to the House for getting it wrong—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Members will leave the Chamber!

Gerry Brownlee: Quite clearly, it was inappropriate for me to say that the rifle was on the back seat when it was in the boot all the time.

Chester Borrows: Can the Minister confirm that front-line police were first promised stab-resistant vests in June last year, then in February 2007 and then in May, but that fewer than half of officers have them now—all because management ordered the wrong colour, the wrong material, the wrong design, and then the wrong sizes, which means that 1,500 tiny little vests are now in storage, wasting $1.5 million that could have been spent on other tools to keep front-line police safe?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I think the member has pretty much summed up some of the errors that have been made with the purchase of these vests. [Interruption] However—

Madam SPEAKER: No, would the Minister please be seated. We will hear the rest of this question in silence, because I cannot hear what is happening. If I cannot, I am sure that other members in the Chamber cannot.

Hon ANNETTE KING: However, I think it is important to tell the House that 3,241 vests have already been issued to staff. Another 1,500 are in the process of being issued in the incremental roll-out. There are 1,700 in storage, and I think that New Zealand First would be pleased to hear that, because the vests are able to be used for new officers in the future. We are recruiting 1,000 additional officers, and there are—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Order!

Hon ANNETTE KING: —officers who change sizes. Some of them get bigger and some get smaller, so the vests are able to be used; they will not be wasted. I believe that the police will ensure that those officers who require them will get them. But that does not excuse the fact that this project has been very slow in its roll-out, with quite a number of problems that I think could have been better managed.

Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Twice during the Minister of Police’s answer Phil Heatley interjected—

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, he did.

Darren Hughes: —after you had specifically asked the House to hear the answer in silence.

Madam SPEAKER: I did, and I was waiting to the end until I drew the House’s attention to that.

Phil Heatley withdrew from the Chamber.

Chester Borrows: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just wonder whether the Minister would like to reconsider her answer. She said that 3,200 or so vests had been issued, with 1,500 to come.

Madam SPEAKER: That is a supplementary question; it is not a point of order. But the member will please proceed.

Chester Borrows: Well, her initial statement said that there were 6,910 vests to be rolled out, and the figures do not add up.

Madam SPEAKER: The member can ask a supplementary question.

Chester Borrows: I will move on; does the Minister stand by her response to the Bazley report—

Madam SPEAKER: We are hearing this question in silence; otherwise there will be nobody left in the Chamber.

Chester Borrows: Does the Minister stand by her response to the Bazley report that there can be no tolerance for disgraceful conduct by police officers involved in the exploitation of vulnerable people; if she does, why has the previous head of the Horowhenua Criminal Investigation Bureau (CIB), Detective Sergeant Peter Govers, been demoted rather than sacked for harassing a female informant for sex, with the option of returning to the CIB after 2 years and having promotion after a year?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I hope that I can get a couple of answers in here, because I want to tell the member, who did not hear me properly, that in fact 3,241 vests have been issued, and 1,500 are in the process of being issued. The figure of 6,527 vests have been received. Those are the latest figures I have, so if that helps the member I am happy to provide that information.

In response to the member’s question regarding the demotion of an officer, who I think carried out conduct not becoming of the New Zealand Police, I can say that a decision on what would happen to this police officer was made before the commission of inquiry’s report actually came out. I believe, as Mr Howard, the commissioner, said on television last night, that if the issue came before us today the officer would lose his job.

Chester Borrows: Why has the Minister claimed that Govers was not dismissed because this action took place before she received the recommendations of the Bazley report, when for 3 years those in police management knew they were under the spotlight for the way they had handled these kinds of claims, they had seen drafts of the Bazley report, and they had even begun to implement its recommendations before it was released, yet on 19 March, 2 weeks before the Bazley report went public, they still chose to demote rather than dismiss?

Hon ANNETTE KING: There are two very important recommendations out of the 48 that Dame Margaret made, in relation to the police—two very important ones, which will be implemented this year. The first is in relation to the code of conduct. Unfortunately, the member put out a statement a few days ago saying there is already a code of conduct. I do not know whether that member remembers what is in place in the police. The report of the commission of inquiry states that there is no code of conduct, the head office of the New Zealand Police says there is no code of conduct, and the Police Association says there is no code of conduct. I know that there is no code of conduct. The only code of conduct applies to non-sworn officers. So the implementation of a code of conduct does make a difference, because it allows the police to consider behaviour as a whole and not be restricted by prescribed breaches of conduct, as currently detailed in the police regulations. That leads me to the second important recommendation, that the regulations governing the disciplinary matters of the police be changed. They will be changed, I believe, by September of this year. They probably should have been changed a long time ago, but they will be changed this year.

Chester Borrows: What does the Minister say to the women of this country who believed her assurances and those of the Prime Minister that their complaints about improper conduct by the police would be taken seriously, when she now appears to be telling them that zero tolerance applies to disgraceful conduct that occurred only after 3 April, which is when the Bazley report was released?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, that is not what I am saying to the women of New Zealand. I am so pleased that it took this Prime Minister in this Labour-led Government, this Minister of Police, and the previous Minister of Police to take those women seriously and to set up a commission of inquiry to ensure that those issues were looked into. That never happened under a National Government. National never took it seriously. This Government did. We have 48 recommendations, and the assurance I give to the women of New Zealand is that every one of those recommendations will be implemented.

Bus Services, Wellington—Environmental Friendliness

9. Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Transport: What recent developments, if any, have there been in providing environmentally friendly bus services in the Wellington region?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport): This afternoon I will attend the signing of a contract between the Greater Wellington Regional Council and New Zealand Bus Limited, which will result in the complete rebuilding of Wellington’s 60 electric-powered trolley buses.

Hon Tau Henare: When are you going to use the bus yourself?

Hon ANNETTE KING: That is a good question. Actually, I have a bus ticket and I do use the bus on quite a regular basis. Funding for this project is shared between Greater Wellington Regional Council and the Government through Land Transport New Zealand. The contract will ensure that larger, more comfortable trolley buses will continue to provide an essential transport service to Wellington residents, while contributing to reduced greenhouse gas emissions and reduced local air pollution.

Hon Marian Hobbs: I thank the Minister—I am really delighted—and ask: what are the environmental benefits of trolley buses?

Hon ANNETTE KING: That is a very good question, and I pay a compliment back to the member and to Sue Kedgley, who have been strong advocates for the trolley buses in Wellington. Trolley buses produce no local air pollution, which makes Wellington inner city a great place in which to work and live. I am advised that the new buses will also save over 1,600 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year, compared with their diesel bus equivalents. The amount of electricity used by the fleet of 60 buses—and this will be very interesting to Mr Brownlee, the Opposition spokesperson on energy—is equivalent to that produced by about half of one new windmill installed at TrustPower’s new Tararua wind farm.

Law Commission—Confidence in President

10. CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Minister responsible for the Law Commission: Does he have confidence in the judgment of the president of the Law Commission; if not, why not?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister responsible for the Law Commission): Yes.

Christopher Finlayson: Does the Minister agree with the former Minister of Justice Geoffrey Palmer that the Law Commission will be more independent of the Government than any other Law Commission in the Commonwealth; if so, in how many other Commonwealth countries does the president of the Law Commission donate almost $11,000 to the governing political party that appointed him or her?

Hon MARK BURTON: To the first question, yes, because it is; that is a matter of legal fact. Secondly, this Law Commission president was appointed on his undeniable competence, qualification, and high integrity. I suggest to that member that the president was appointed for the same reason that the former Prime Minister the Rt Hon Jim Bolger was retained as an ambassador in a highly sensitive position—because he was competent and his integrity was beyond reproach. It was equally appropriate. I say to the junior Opposition whip, who is rubbing his little fingers together, that the difference is that in the case of Geoffrey Palmer we know transparently what he has given in terms of donations. We have no idea about the secret donations that are smuggled into the National Party through its secret trust accounts. That is the difference; this is open and transparent.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know there are certain rules about what members can say in this House. Most of them, without pointing it out clearly, require members to back their comments up. I think Mr Tau Henare’s comment about a former Prime Minister being a hack is really unbecoming of parliamentary behaviour, and I ask him to apologise. If he has any reason why he should say that, then perhaps he should ask a question to back it up. Calling former Prime Ministers hacks and stoolies and things like that is really not something to be encouraged in this Parliament.

Madam SPEAKER: It is unfortunate such comments are, in fact, used from time to time, and they probably reflect on the various members who actually use them. I ask for the next supplementary question.

Hon Tau Henare: That’s not even a point of order.

Madam SPEAKER: That is what I have said.

Hon Tau Henare: Well, why didn’t you say that at the beginning?

Madam SPEAKER: Would you like to leave the Chamber, Mr Henare, thank you very much. You can come back for your question.

Hon Tau Henare withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: How can the public have confidence in the independence and impartiality of the Law Commission when it next considers electoral reform, when that independence and impartiality appear to have been compromised by the president of the Law Commission donating almost $11,000 to bail out the Labour Party’s breach of the Electoral Act when it illegally spent over $800,000?

Hon MARK BURTON: People can have confidence because the president of the Law Commission is a man of high integrity and reputation, unlike some of the members asking questions in this House.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: He’s just a party hack.

Hon MARK BURTON: Mr Smith over there is chirping away. That same criticism could be levelled at Jim Bolger but it should not be, for the same reason—he is a man of integrity. Jim Bolger had a highly sensitive position and was possessed of information highly damaging potentially to this country. This Government trusted him because it had reason to. His integrity is beyond reproach; so is Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s. I think using this matter to try to score political points reflects appallingly on those members who do that. It will do them no good.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Has he seen reports from Andrew Ladley, the former coalition manager for the Government, who said: “… it would be unwise for someone in Sir Geoffrey’s position to make political donations.”, and: “Ordinarily a senior person in public service would exercise their judgement very carefully before making substantial donation because of the perception that could be around that they would not carry out their public service duties in a politically neutral fashion.”; if so, why does the Minister insist that the president of the Law Commission should be exempt from standards of independence and neutrality that apply to all other public servants?

Hon MARK BURTON: We seem to have a trend today of selective quoting. I will go on to say what Dr Ladley actually concluded: “… there’s unlikely to be any question of judgment, given that Sir Geoffrey’s background was well known before he took up the role.” Look, the question is this: is this man, this former Prime Minister, someone of high quality, high confidence, and integrity? The answer is “Yes.” He is undeniably a highly appropriate appointment to this position.

Christopher Finlayson: Does the Minister not agree that the real issue here is not Sir Geoffrey’s competence, high reputation, honesty, or transparency, which I for one do not question, but his judgment, or in this case the lack of it?

Hon MARK BURTON: No, I do not. Had Sir Geoffrey chosen to donate a few hundred dollars less, this matter, of course, would not have required a declaration. He knowingly made an open, transparent donation to a party that he was the Prime Minister and leader of.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: In the light of the question from Georgina te Heuheu, does the Minister intend that before appointing anybody to any office he will ask whether that person has made any donation to any political party—for example, the former Governor of the Reserve Bank to the National Party—and will recommend his colleagues also do the same; if not, why not?

Hon MARK BURTON: It is a tempting proposition but, of course, as I have indicated in earlier answers, the question is whether people will be appropriate appointments. I have no idea, for instance, whether any judge or any head of any agency has made donations this year or any other year to the National Party, nor do I care, because it is their competence and their integrity that is the issue at point.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a number of articles from newspapers at the time of the appointment of Sir Keith Holyoake to be Governor-General of this country that indicate that National was outraged when some members of the Labour Party accused him of being a hack—inappropriately so on that occasion, as well.

Leave granted.

Broadband Network—Funding

11. DAVE HEREORA (Labour) to the Minister of Communications: Has he received any further reports on financing improvements to New Zealand’s broadband network?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications): Yes, I have seen reported today in the New Zealand Herald Bill English opposing Government investment in this country’s broadband infrastructure—contradicting his co-leader, John Key, who last week proposed doing exactly that.

Dave Hereora: Has the Minister seen any reports on investment by local authorities in New Zealand’s broadband infrastructure?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes, in the same New Zealand Herald report Bill English is quoted as being concerned at local bodies investing in broadband infrastructure for their citizens. So he is undermining not only his leader but also the efforts of hard-working, self-sacrificing New Zealand communities that are doing their bit to bring faster broadband to the people.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Government implement the policy of the Australian Labor Party and promote a Government-funded national fibre network, in light of Bill English’s statement in the New Zealand Herald that National will look at adopting this policy; if not, why obviously is it to be not?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: In response to the member, I find it immensely amusing that the National Party should look to adopt the policy of the Labor Party of another country. The Government is at a delicate stage in implementing the Telecommunications Amendment Act—legislation that, miraculously, both Mr Key and Mr English voted for at the same time. Now, even if they could agree on their own policy, it would be totally inappropriate for them to wade into this matter at such a delicate time.

Madam SPEAKER: Will the Minister stick to the question please. Superfluous comments lead only to disorder.

Te Puni Kōkiri—Confidence

12. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he have confidence in Te Puni Kōkiri; if not, why not?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): Yes, I have confidence in Te Puni Kōkiri, because the staff and employees are hard-working and conscientious people.

Hon Tau Henare: Why did Te Puni Kōkiri let one-fifth of all of its contracts to contractors in 2005-06—$1.5 million of taxpayers’ money—without any tendering process whatsoever?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Te Puni Kōkiri entered into 262 contracts for that period. The total value of all contracts awarded was $7.5 million. There is certainly a limited market of expertise in this market in developing Māori issues. Te Puni Kōkiri’s benchmark was $50,000. Where it has gone above it and not tendered, it has gone for the best person in a very limited market.

Hon Tau Henare: Can the Minister confirm that four of the 10 largest contracts Te Puni Kōkiri let to contractors in 2005-06 were let without tender, including one to a Nikki Birch for $100,000 because she “was known to the Ministry”?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I can confirm that added bit at the end of that question. There is more of an issue in the sense of the skills of Nikki Birch. Can I remind that member that expenditure on contractors and consultants has decreased over the last 2 financial years. In 2004-05 it was $7.9 million; in 2005-06 it was $6.9 million. It is projected downwards to $5.5 million this financial year.

Hon Tau Henare: Can the Minister confirm his answer to question for written answer No. 03296 that a contract worth $67,000 was let without tender to Michael Dreaver because the contractor was available, and that another contract worth $58,000 was let without tender to Donna Matahaere because the contractor was available?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: As I said earlier on, and I will remind that member, although it was Te Puni Kōkiri’s general policy to tender for contracts over $50,000, where this has not occurred it has been for a number of reasons, including where specialist skills were required, where there was a limited field of contractors in Māori public policy available for business continuity, and they were available at the time.

Hon Tau Henare: How can the New Zealand taxpaying public have confidence in Te Puni Kōkiri’s financial responsibility when one-fifth of all its contracts are let without tender and for such reasons as “the contractor used to work at TPK”, and “the contractor knew people at TPK”?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: There are strong requirements in the sense of the outcomes in relation to these contracts. I have written to that member with detail around each one. It is quite fascinating that Mr Henare is the person who is talking about contracting and taking contracts, because I remember when he got $260,000 to set up a chat show in the garage. He referred to it and aligned it with The Kumars at No 42. Nothing came out of that—nothing whatsoever. That is what a shoddy use of taxpayers’ money is! I remind that member about that.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I did not ask a question about The Kumars at No 42 or whether people watched my show, which was actually quite a good show. I actually asked the Minister about whether the taxpaying public should have confidence—

Madam SPEAKER: I understand the member’s point of order. The Minister did address the question and then strayed into superfluous matters.

Hon Tau Henare: Can the Minister confirm that in late 2006—last year—the Auditor-General advised the Māori Affairs Committee that Te Puni Kōkiri needs to be cognisant of prudent financial management—for example, its own contracting guidelines—and that Te Puni Kōkiri’s 2006 financial review found that Te Puni Kōkiri’s contract management systems failed to comply with Te Puni Kōkiri’s own operational guidelines; and what will the Minister do about it?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: As that member knows, on the select committee there has been a continued review. Certainly the processes and systems have been strengthened beyond any performance that that member was into. I invite him into my office to talk to the officials again.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it OK for the Minister to address the question in any which way he wants to without even reference to the question? That is what I get a bit put out by.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. As the member is aware, Ministers are required to address the questions but frequently it is not to the satisfaction of those who ask the questions.

Hon Tau Henare: I seek leave of the House to table a list of the untendered contracts.

Leave granted.

Hon Tau Henare: I seek leave to table the answer to question for written answer No. 03294: the total value of all contracts awarded by Te Puni Kōkiri.

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

Hon Tau Henare: I seek leave to table the answer to question for written answer No. 03296 about all of the untendered contracts.

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

Hon Tau Henare: I seek leave to table the answer to question for written answer No. 03295, which sets out the 10 largest contracts—

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

ENDS

© Scoop Media