Thursday, 24 May 2007

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Taito Phillip Field—Prime Minister's Comments

Broadbank Network—Financing

Budget 2007—Treasury Estimate of Fiscal Impulse

District Health Boards—Removal of Elected Members

Youth Crime—Government Pledge

Television New Zealand—Charter Obligations to Māori

Amnesty International—Action Plan for Human Rights

Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill—Consultation with Minister of Māori Affairs

Defence Force—Personnel Deployed Overseas

Child, Youth and Family—Confidence

Standards and Conformance Infrastructure Review—Response

Benefits—Single Core Benefit

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Taito Phillip Field—Prime Minister's Comments

1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement on the actions of Taito Phillip Field while a Minister, “I think the only thing he is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone.”; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: In light of the announcement from the police this morning, the Prime Minister has no comment to make other than to say that Mr Field, like every other New Zealander, has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Hon Bill English: Why is it that this Prime Minister and this Labour Government cannot tell the difference between trying to be helpful to someone, and actions that warrant the investigation of the police for corruption?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have advised the member that it is wise not to make further comment and that Mr Field has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House why she restricted the terms of the Ingram inquiry to such an extent that even Mr Ingram said he could not fully consider the actions of Taito Phillip Field; and did she do this because she never wanted him to get to the bottom of the issue?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister, on a number of occasions in the past, has invited people with the information to present that to the police. They have done so. The police have undertaken their inquiries and have made announcements this morning.

Hon Bill English: Does she still stand by her response to a member of this House, after more information was provided, when she said—following the release of the Ingram report—“If the member had taken the time to read the report as thoroughly as I have, he would have found out everything he wanted and needed to know about the matter.”; and will she now apologise to the House, in light of the fact that the police are clearly not satisfied that everything that was needed to be known was known?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The police have undertaken their inquiries and are engaged in the appropriate action as they consider it at this time. I would advise the member that the rule of law still obtains in this country. The Prime Minister does not intend to comment further on this case, now that charges are being considered and are being taken to the court.

Hon Bill English: Why can the Prime Minister not comment on her own past actions—for instance, when she said that these allegations surrounding Taito Phillip Field did not warrant further investigation, because it would cost too much?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I would advise, again, the member to understand the doctrine of comity between Parliament and the courts, and he would be well advised not to try to try Mr Field within this arena.

Hon Bill English: Is the Prime Minister saying that because the police are going to apply to lay charges against Taito Phillip Field, this House has no right to ask her about her highly questionable actions in protecting this member of Parliament from proper investigation for what is now 18 months?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What I am saying to the member is that Mr Field now has the right to be treated like any other New Zealander and not to have, in effect, this House trying to influence any subsequent legal action that may take place. The police are applying to the courts, of course, because, under the law, that has to occur in respect of a member of Parliament in the nature of these charges. They are just to protect members of Parliament against a Government seeking to lay such charges without a proper basis.

Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister believe that she should be treated like any other Prime Minister and be held accountable in this House for her behaviour, such as when she said: “The reason for not wanting a further inquiry is that the member has had his punishment … The member has suffered humiliation as a result of the report.”, and then subsequently she herself referred the matter to the police?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I point out again that the Prime Minister invited people with further information to take it to the police. The police have considered that information. However, Mr Field, of course, is no longer a member of the Labour caucus; whereas, when Dr Nick Smith was convicted of contempt he was kept on the front bench of the National Party.

Hon Bill English: Why did the Prime Minister not refer the information she had, as far back as prior to the 2005 election, directly to the police; or is it the case that she cannot tell the difference between possibly corrupt activity and “helping someone”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member, yet again, is trying to encroach upon the role of the courts and the legal system in this respect. The Government is not going to join him in that contempt for the rule of law.

Hon Bill English: Did the Prime Minister ask the advice of her deputy, the Minister of Finance, at any stage, on setting up the Ingram inquiry, or on dealing with the results of that inquiry; if so, what was the advice she received from him?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: To the best of my recollection, conversations occurred with the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister endorsed the actions taken by the Prime Minister at the time.

Hon Bill English: Does that mean that the Deputy Prime Minister shares the Prime Minister’s problem of not being able to tell the difference between a member of Parliament helping his or her constituents, and potentially corrupt activity that now warrants the police going off to the High Court to ask for permission to lay charges?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, it means that the Deputy Prime Minister is in a particularly acute position as the Attorney-General and will uphold the rule of law despite attempts by Mr English to bully him or anybody else into not doing so.

Heather Roy: Is not the real reason the Prime Minister is not standing by her statement today that Taito Phillip Field fell out of her favour and that a pattern is emerging in the use of police discretion when prosecuting MPs, as evidenced by the police not prosecuting the Prime Minister for art fraud, or dangerous driving through South Canterbury, assault on a minor by Minister Benson-Pope, assault by Minister Hodgson, breach of the Companies Act by Minister Parker, and electoral fraud by the Labour Party, as opposed to the charging of Shane Ardern for driving a tractor, Nick Smith for standing up for a constituent, Donna Awatere Huata for fraud, and Taito Phillip Field for bribery, and what is her part in this pattern?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Nearly all of those claims are outrageous and wrong, apart from Dr Nick Smith being convicted of contempt of court, which the Government had nothing to do with. But let me take just one of those examples. The driver in South Canterbury was charged with an offence, convicted, and subsequently cleared of that offence. Despite the fact that he was tried and found guilty in this House by members opposite, he was actually found innocent in the end.

Broadbank Network—Financing

2. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Communications: What reports has he received on financing improvements to New Zealand’s broadband network?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications): Yes, I saw reported yesterday in the Dunedin newspaper The Star, Katherine Rich proposing Government investment in broadband infrastructure in Dunedin—siding with her leader, John Key, against Bill English and Maurice Williamson, who oppose the other leader’s initiative.

Moana Mackey: Has the Minister seen any further reports on investment in broadband infrastructure?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes, in the same report in The Star Katherine Rich again backed John Key, saying that National would commit taxpayers’ funds before key decisions with industry have taken place, thus contradicting Mr English, who says: “We wouldn’t favour investing as anything other than a last ditch thing.”, and who “doubts the ability of local or central government to manage broadband investment.” I understand there are more such delicious contradictions in the pipeline, and I undertake to keep the House fully informed in the next session.

Budget 2007—Treasury Estimate of Fiscal Impulse

3. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Treasury’s estimate of the fiscal impulse in 2008 of his latest Budget, as set out in the additional information to the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 2007?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Yes, and I also agree with the Treasury estimate that fiscal policy continues to lean against domestic demand.

Hon Bill English: Why does the Minister keep saying that the Budget is leaning against domestic demand when the calculation of fiscal impulse shows quite clearly that his Budget will increase domestic demand, and that will force interest rates up higher for longer?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Because it is moving off a base of a very large operating and cash surplus, which the Opposition has continually attacked for the last 3 years, and because, as the ANZ suggests, once again a good balance was struck between running a prudent fiscal policy and not fanning an excessive domestic economy.

Shane Jones: Has the Minister seen any reports on business reaction to fiscal measures in the Budget?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes. At the heart of the Budget were initiatives to encourage saving and investing. I have seen a report that shows that 68 percent of business managers, proprietors, and the self-employed agree with the KiwiSaver employer contributions—and Mr Brownlee nods his head in agreement—and 77 percent support the company tax rate that National voted against.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the Budget documents show that despite his spin, Treasury calculates that the Budget will increase demand and therefore put pressure on interest rates; that his spending is significantly higher than he forecast just 6 months ago; and that homeowners facing higher mortgage rates, higher overdraft rates, and higher rates on hire purchase believe that he is part of the problem?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No., I can confirm that spending and revenue are both running ahead of the mid-year forecast, and that the balance is perfectly in line with the mid-year forecast. That mid-year forecast is already taken account of in terms of current monetary policy and market interest rates. The markets these days tend to move in anticipation rather than in reaction.

R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister agree that encouraging savings has less of a stimulating effect on the economy than, say, tax cuts, while providing the greatest benefits?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is clear that over time KiwiSaver will take some demand out of the economy. Indeed, Mr English, in his own speech in the Budget debate, criticised it for reducing consumption. One domestic demand that has clearly been resisted is that by Mr Key for a $2½ billion a year tax cut fed straight back into demand, which must have led to higher interest rates according to the very logic that Mr English is now pursuing.

Hon Bill English: Why is it that the Minister can defend his policies only on the basis of accusing National of running a high interest rate and high exchange rate policy, when he is the Minister of Finance and he has overseen the highest interest rates and the highest exchange rate we have seen for years, and when Treasury commentary in the Budget says we should expect interest rates to be higher for longer than previously forecast?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Because I have also presided over the highest long sustained growth rates for years, and the lowest unemployment level for years, and that has a great deal to do with domestic demand. But Mr English’s leader made it clear in the House yesterday that his view was that the Government should borrow more money to leverage off New Zealand superannuation, and to spend that money by way of tax cuts, which is highly inflationary. We know that Mr English disagrees with that; that is why he is asking these questions today.

Hon Bill English: Should the Minister not be telling the House that in his own Budget he plans to borrow $4 billion, and will he tell us what he borrowed it for—the sweeteners on KiwiSaver, the company tax cuts, or the increased inflationary domestic spending?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: This year’s Budget shows a level of operating surplus over the next 4 years that is consistent with keeping gross debt to GDP constant. Mr Key made it absolutely crystal clear yesterday that he regarded the growing surpluses in the superannuation fund as a reason why one could borrow more and change what he calls the gearing of the New Zealand Government to fund tax cuts. Mr English needs to ask Mr Key the questions, not me.

District Health Boards—Removal of Elected Members

4. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: What provisions, if any, allow elected district health board members to be removed from their positions by the Government?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: There are provisions in the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000. Clause 8(1) of schedule 3 states that the Minister may remove an elected member of a board for any of the reasons outlined in legislation and by following due process.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is the Minister aware that the Whanganui District Health Board has called an emergency meeting for tomorrow to reportedly censure and seek the removal of Clive Solomon, an elected board member who has repeatedly alerted the public to the declining quality of care at Wanganui Hospital, and with all its problems does the Minister think this is the most pressing issue facing this district health board?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: No, I am not personally aware of that fact, although I understand that the Minister was rung by the chair of the district health board as a matter of courtesy. But I can remind the member that the Health and Disability Commissioner is inquiring into the services of the Whanganui District Health Board, and the Ministry of Health has commissioned a clinical review, as well.

Hon Tony Ryall: Are elected district health board members permitted to raise publicly concerns about patient safety at their hospitals, or are they expected to cover it up?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I do not think anyone in public life has any obligation to cover anything up, nor would many of us want to do so. But the workings of the district health board in Wanganui are properly matters for the board, and, as the member has indicated to the House, the board is meeting on that matter tomorrow. I do not know what else he would like the board to do.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister not think it is bizarre that the Whanganui District Health Board never had an emergency meeting when one of its surgeons botched the sterilisations of numerous young women, never had an emergency meeting when cancer patients went unchecked, but when an elected board member criticises the previous chairman of the board—a close friend of Labour Party Cabinet Ministers—the Government’s dogs are off the leash?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: As a member of the Government’s Cabinet, I have no idea who this person is. I have never met or heard of the person. But if the district health board is having a meeting on that matter, then that seems appropriate to me. I doubt very much whether the member asking the question knows anything about what meetings were held by board members, or anyone else, over this matter. He is speculating about it.

Hon Tony Ryall: What is the point of having whistleblower legislation, when, if someone does the right thing—speaks out for the community—that person is hunted out and taken down by the Government’s henchmen?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: The National Party has obviously been in Opposition so long that it has lost any perception at all about the rule of law. We just had the deputy leader of the National Party wanting to hang, draw, and quarter someone, before any evidence is heard. Now, we have Mr Ryall telling us that somebody who has not had the evidence heard, is some kind of a saint. Well, he may well be but there are due processes to go through. The Minister of Health will be in a position of acting quasi-judicially on this matter, and therefore he or she would never make judgments like Mr Ryall. That is why I hope Mr Ryall is never in a position to make any sort of judgment at all, because his judgment is completely flawed.

Youth Crime—Government Pledge

5. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement on 11 August 2005 that the Labour Government had “pledged to focus on youth crime.”?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Yes.

Ron Mark: Is he satisfied that since 2002 the number of cases heard in the Youth Court has increased by a massive 70 percent and the number of offenders has increased by almost one-third, and what does he think these increases say about the pledge to focus on youth crime?

Hon MARK BURTON: The member will be pleased to know that over the last 5 years youth apprehensions have, in fact, decreased by 5.1 percent, and that when adjusted for the increase in population size, the number is actually, overall, the lowest recorded since 1995.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you heard that question clearly, and the Minister spoke of apprehensions. My question specifically was about Youth Court appearances increasing by 70 percent—figures that I got from his own department.

Hon MARK BURTON: Speaking to the point of order, can I say the member is quite correct, but his principal question related to the overall youth-offending issue, which is what the Prime Minister had referred to. I gave him the fuller information, which I assumed he would be pleased to receive.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister has addressed the question, so, no, unless it is a new point of order.

Ron Mark: I know he addressed the principal question when I asked the principal question. My supplementary question was very specific, I suggest to you, Madam Speaker. Therefore, he should have focused on the Youth Court, which my supplementary question asked about.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister did address the question.

Lynne Pillay: Can the Minister give an example of a practical intervention that is making a difference in responding to youth crime?

Hon MARK BURTON: Many projects are funded through Government agencies, often in conjunction with non-governmental organisations and community-based agencies. A good example is Tamaki Pathways, a Glen Innes - based youth project dealing with at-risk youth. It provides an alternative action path for young offenders, and is aimed at reducing the risk of offending and a range of other problematic behaviour. The project has been evaluated—I think that is a very important factor—and it has been showing very good impacts on offending behaviour and other social outcomes.

Chester Borrows: Does the Minister agree with Judge Becroft’s statements that youth crime is caused by disengagement from family and education, and by dependence on drugs and alcohol; and how do the failure of the Reducing Youth Offending Programme, the closure of alcohol and drug clinics, and the lack of a truancy register while 45,000 kids wag school each week stop youth offending?

Hon MARK BURTON: I certainly agree with Judge Becroft that those factors are considerable contributors—and I assume he did say the remarks that the member has attributed to him. Certainly, early intervention schemes such as the ENROL scheme, the Te Hurihanga programme, which is about to get under way in Hamilton, the 32 youth-offending teams, which have been working since 2003, and the good example of the Horowhenua Life to the Max programme are all good examples of the sort of activity that this Government has resourced to support young people and to bring down rates of youth offending.

Judy Turner: Does the Minister agree with the social policy unit of the Salvation Army, which, although agreeing that young people should be held accountable for their offending, suggests that better resourcing for youth justice should be focused on ensuring that family group conferences are undertaken in a timely way, providing treatment programmes for drug and alcohol problems, and conducting psychological, psychiatric, and educational assessments, rather than harsher sentencing; if he does agree, what Government priorities are being set in those directions?

Hon MARK BURTON: I think the general thrust of that assertion is entirely correct. If the member would like to put a specific question to the appropriate Minister, I am sure she would get considerable detail on the wide range of initiatives undertaken through the Ministry of Social Development, Child, Youth and Family, and a number of other Government agencies that are advancing the very matters she is talking about.

Ron Mark: Does the Minister agree that the fact that 40 percent of those appearing in the Youth Court last year were repeat offenders, and the fact that an astounding 39 youths were last year making their ninth or more appearance, compared with only one in 2002, are clear evidence that the youth justice system is failing to deal effectively with serious, recidivist youth offenders?

Hon MARK BURTON: Firstly, I have to say I cannot agree that the youth justice system is failing to deal with young people. As I have indicated to the member, the actual overall offending rate is tracking down. But I do agree with the member that there is a critical issue around repeat offending. That is why the focus is on early intervention. Indeed, some of the areas that the previous questioner raised are critically important, and that is why they do represent a major focus of this Government’s investments.

Ron Mark: Does the Minister treat with the same degree of scepticism that New Zealand First does the advice from the plethora of youth-offending apologists and denialists that youth crime and recidivism rates are not increasing, when this information, fresh out of his own office, clearly shows that they are?

Hon MARK BURTON: Although I do not doubt for a moment that the information the member held up came from my office if he said he did, I do not know which information he is referring to. As I have said to the member, the overall statistical fact is that youth-offending rates are trending downwards.

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to table answers to written questions lodged with the Minister of Justice.

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

Television New Zealand—Charter Obligations to Māori

6. Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Broadcasting: Does he believe Television New Zealand is adequately fulfilling its Charter obligation to ensure the presence of a significant Māori voice?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting: Television New Zealand (TVNZ) has two obligations under its charter. One is to feature Māori programmes, and one to ensure Māori participation in programmes and planning. Māori programme is represented by programmes like Eye to Eye with Willie Jackson, Marae, Te Karere, Mai Time, and Waka Huia, as well as coverage of specific events like Dame Te Ata’s tangi.

Hon Bill English: Give us the whole list.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Oh, there speaks Southland. These efforts will be rewarded by awards for Māori programmes, high ratings of Māori programmes, and strong popularity of TVNZ channels amongst Māori viewers.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Does Game of Two Halves count as ensuring the presence of a significant Māori voice on television, and if he believes that it does, is not that really patronising Māori who appear on the programme because it implies they are there to fulfil a charter requirement, when the reality is that their race is completely irrelevant to their presence on the screen?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I said that there are two charter elements. One is Māori programmes, and one is to ensure Māori participation in programmes and planning. It is significant that yesterday, when one National Party spokesperson was asked to articulate her views, the only example she came up with was indeed Game of Two Halves.

Pita Paraone: Does the Minister believe that rather than just focusing on the quantity of programmes that present a Māori perspective, TVNZ should also focus on the quality and appropriateness of those programmes, to ensure a Māori perspective; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I agree with that. It is interesting that 19 of the top 20 programmes on television are in fact shown by TVNZ.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: How can TVNZ claim that programmes like Police Ten-7 and Lockdown—programmes that portray negative stereotypes of Māori as underachievers and criminals—fulfil its charter obligation to promote Māori language and culture?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: My understanding is that Mr Ellis was responding in relation to the Māori participation element, not the Māori programme. I think he accepts that the example he chose was an infelicitous one. I am sure that if it was suggested that TVNZ was deliberately removing Māori criminals from Police Ten-7 the National Party would be up in arms about that.

Sue Kedgley: Was he surprised by Mr Ellis’ statement yesterday when he sought to justify the ludicrous placement of Te Karere at a time when Māori are not watching it, by the statement: “At the end of the day we are a commercial broadcaster.”, and does he agree that this suggests the chief executive has become so obsessed with returning a profit that he has forgotten that TVNZ is actually a public service broadcaster with substantial taxpayer funding and obligations to ensure a significant Māori voice?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: TVNZ obviously operates its own decisions with regard to the placement of programming. I think we can probably all find programmes that we wish were not shown at the times they are shown either because we wish we did not have to watch them or because we wish we could actually see them when we are able to.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister a very specific question and he has not even attempted to answer it. I asked whether he was surprised by Mr Ellis’s comment that TVNZ was, basically, simply a commercial broadcaster.

Madam SPEAKER: I listened to the member’s question. It was a very long question that involved several thoughts. As the member knows, with all supplementary questions the Minister is required to respond to only one of them, and the Minister did on that occasion. I suggest to all members that they keep their questions quite specific and quite short.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Was it a deliberate decision by TVNZ to include Māori individuals in shows like Dancing with the Stars, Game of Two Halves, Location Location Location, and so on to fulfil charter obligations; if so, how can such a distasteful policy be condoned by the Minister, and could this be why the Prime Minister reportedly said today: “I cannot see that one would count the programmes he mentioned as contributing to Māori perspectives on television. I think Rick Ellis would be best to rethink that one.”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I emphasise again there are two different obligations. One is in terms of Māori programming, which is quite specific.

Hon Member: Just answer the question.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am answering the question. One is in terms of Māori participation. That, of course, gets us into a classic “killed if you do and killed if you don’t” kind of argument. If one has Māori represented, then, presumably, the argument from some is that that is some kind of apartheid. If one does not have Māori represented, then the argument is that the programme is unrepresentative. I do not regard having particular Māori on Dancing with the Stars as fulfilling charter obligations. I am not convinced that Dancing with the Stars fulfils charter obligations any more than having Rodney Hide on Dancing with the Stars is representing a minority of people who cannot dance.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister concur with the view of TVNZ’s chief executive that, effectively, Māori content on local programming means having someone with a brown face on it, or does he agree with the Māori Party co-leader Pita Sharples who said that just having someone on a programme saying “Kia ora, bro.”, does not make it a Māori programme?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I would probably agree more with Dr Sharples on that, but I would point out that Mr Ellis was answering in the context of participation not Māori programmes. It is unfair to translate his answer across into the Māori programming element where TVNZ does a reasonably significant amount of Māori programmes. But, clearly, tokenism of the sort that the member is referring to does not meet any kinds of obligations.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Does the Minister agree that there is a major contradiction if he says he does not believe that Dancing with the Stars fulfils charter obligations when the chief executive of TVNZ repeatedly says it does?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am entitled to my views and he is entitled to his.

Sue Kedgley: Given all the speculation as to what does constitute a charter programme and whether Dancing with the Stars and Police Ten-7 are charter programming, does he not think it is high time, if he expects New Zealanders to continue to fund charter programmes, that we actually came up with a definition and clear criteria as to what constitutes a charter programme and what does not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I do not, for a very simple reason. I believe that some broad definition is appropriate, but once we try to become highly specific then the Government is trying to direct TVNZ about specific programming, and there is a name for States that run that kind of system.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Does the Minister agree with Rick Ellis when he said on Radio New Zealand National earlier today that this debate flows from a general lack of specificity around charter measurements; and why has the Minister spent the last 5 years championing a charter for TVNZ that is basically meaningless because it is completely non-specific and contains no solid criteria against which its implementation can be measured?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The measurements are being reviewed this year. [Interruption] In fact, if the member had read Mr Ellis’s interview he would know that, because Mr Ellis himself said that in, I think, about the sentence before the one that he was quoting. It is always good to do one’s own work rather than rely on one’s research unit when asking questions.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Why is it that we can never get Minister Maharey to front up when things get a bit sticky in broadcasting, and has not this whole sorry episode really brought matters to a head in broadcasting and proved that the Minister’s charter is a joke because under the charter TVNZ can basically get away with anything; and is not broadcasting policy just another area where this Minister has failed to deliver, just like the National Certificate of Educational Achievement and just like 20 free hours?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Minister is delivering on 20 free hours, but, more important, 19 of the top 20 programmes on television are on TVNZ.

Amnesty International—Action Plan for Human Rights

7. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Justice: What is the Government’s response to the latest Amnesty International report, which criticised the New Zealand Government over the treatment of Algerian refugee Ahmed Zaoui, the police trials of Taser stun guns, and its failure to progress the Action Plan for Human Rights?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): The Labour-led Government welcomes open debate about human rights issues. The matters raised in the report need to be viewed in the broad perspective of New Zealand’s strong record in promoting and protecting human rights, and the high level of human rights enjoyed throughout our country. I note that the report’s brief comment on New Zealand expressly recognises our positive actions on one of the key campaigns of Amnesty International in 2006 to stop violence against women.

Keith Locke: Will the Minister be advising the Minister of Immigration that given the international criticism of the 4-year-plus delay in the review of Ahmed Zaoui’s status, the Minister should at least allow Mr Zaoui’s family members—UN-recognised refugees in their own right—to join him here until the review is completed; if not, why not?

Hon MARK BURTON: If the member wishes to put a question to the Minister of Immigration he should do so. That is a matter completely outside of my ministerial responsibility.

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think it is appropriate, given the Minister of Justice is concerned with human rights, and given the international attention to Mr Zaoui, that as a Minister he can give advice to the Minister of Immigration. This is what my question asked.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, but the Minister has to have ministerial responsibility. The question must be relaid. I am sure that will happen, but not now in question time.

Keith Locke: Will the Minister be advising on human rights grounds that the Minister of Police halt the Taser trial, given the criticism of it in the Amnesty International report and the many deaths that have occurred overseas as a result of Taser use, as identified by Amnesty International?

Hon MARK BURTON: Again, that is a trial that is primarily the responsibility of another Minister, but I am certainly advised that extensive safeguards have been put in place to ensure that Tasers do not represent a breach of human rights of New Zealanders. That programme, as the House knows—we have been informed before—will be thoroughly evaluated.

Darien Fenton: What did the reference to New Zealand in the Amnesty International report say in regard to violence against women?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I indicated in my initial response, the report noted the very important elements of our joint task force programme of action to stop violence against women. As I said, that was a 2006 international focus for Amnesty International. It included the nationwide campaign to change attitudes to violence, changes in the justice sector to meet the needs of victims, offenders, and their families, and a review of deaths resulting from family violence to help strengthen prevention systems.

Keith Locke: What is the Government’s time line to progress and implement the Action Plan for Human Rights, which was commissioned in 2002 and formally received in 2005; what is the hold-up a result of?

Hon MARK BURTON: As the member knows, that is a wide-ranging document. As the acting Chief Human Rights Commissioner himself said today, there has already been useful work in policy on a number of issues. He cited section 59 of the Crimes Act, the New Zealand settlement strategy, and the UN disability convention as work we have already done that is directly related to that.

Simon Power: What does the Minister think?

Hon MARK BURTON: What I think is that if the member has a question he should get on his hind legs and ask it. But I tell Mr Power that the Human Rights Commission is getting an additional $7.5 million. What I think is that this Government is repealing the draconian legislation in industrial relations for the good and well-being of New Zealand workers. I tell Mr Power that that is action on human rights for working New Zealanders.

Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill—Consultation with Minister of Māori Affairs

8. Hon DAVID CARTER (National) to the Minister of Fisheries: Was the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia, consulted on the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill prior to its introduction to the House?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries): Yes, as were all my other Cabinet colleagues, as part of the normal Cabinet process.

Hon David Carter: What did the Minister mean when he wrote to the Hon Parekura Horomia on 28 November 2006 saying: “I would like information on this proposal to stay within the Government.”, and why did he not consider Shane Jones and all Labour Māori caucus members to be part of the Government?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: It would be very helpful if the member were open with the House and finished the sentence he quoted, which states: “I would like information on this proposal to stay within the Government”—which is where the member finished the quote; he should have continued—“until Cabinet has made its decisions.” That is the normal Cabinet process. But, of course, the member did not want to say that, because it would have hurt his case. Never let the facts get in the way of one’s own prejudice!

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Does the Minister share the views of the Labour Party Māori caucus that the proposed amendment will impact on the value of Māori fisheries assets obtained under the Sealord fisheries settlement; if not, why not?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: We are in a situation where we are discussing all of these issues—and I welcome that—both at the select committee, which is taking a constructive approach, and with other members of Parliament. The reality is that we are facing a crisis of sustainability in some of our fisheries, and the Māori caucus members acknowledge that quite strongly. I support them in that and I welcome that support. They have legitimate concerns about the effect of any Act of Parliament or any change in law on commercial fisheries, and I accept that. I do not believe that it is necessarily a valid concern, but we have to talk it through, and we are going to do that, and I welcome the discussion.

Hon David Carter: So did the Minister consult Shane Jones and all of the Labour Māori caucus before introducing the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill to Parliament?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: All bills that go through the Cabinet process go to caucuses. The Progressive caucus met and considered the bill, and was in full agreement with its leader on that matter. I am sure that the Labour caucus also met and that its members expressed their views.

Hon David Carter: So why did the Minister sign out a Cabinet paper specifically noting that this particular legislation did not have to go before Government caucuses?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I believe that the Cabinet minute the member is talking about is a Cabinet minute that went to the economic development Cabinet committee. When Cabinet considered the matter, the minute was altered to note that Government caucuses would be consulted, and that other parties in the House would be consulted—and other parties in the House were consulted. I remind the member, of course, that when the bill finally came to Parliament the member’s own party voted for it.

Hon David Carter: I seek leave to table consultation on Cabinet and Cabinet committee submissions, signed by Jim Anderton, and specifically—

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

Hon David Carter: I seek leave to table a letter from Mr Anderton to Parekura Horomia, dated 28 November 2006.

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

Defence Force—Personnel Deployed Overseas

9. H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) to the Minister of Defence: What reports has he received on the effectiveness and professionalism of New Zealand Defence Force personnel deployed overseas?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): I have recently received two reports. One was received via the Commonwealth Secretary-General, Don McKinnon, and it was from the former commander of the combined joint forces in Afghanistan, General Carl Eichenberry. He stated: “New Zealand forces in that theatre were professionally of the highest order, and one of the best group contingents to deal with. The New Zealand Special Air Service were as good as any similar force …” he had known. The second report was from a letter from the British Chief of Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup. He was noting the end of our joint deployment in Bosnia, and remarked: “New Zealand military personnel have a formidable reputation, and in Bosnia they have only added to it. Their humane, professional, yet low-key demeanour has made them a respected asset to the various multi-national forces that have operated within Bosnia.” I think those are reports that not only the New Zealand Defence Force but every member of this House can rightly be proud of.

H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister share with the House other formal acknowledgments that he has received from Governments of exemplary performance by New Zealand Defence Force personnel?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Yesterday I had the privilege to present to the 1st New Zealand Special Air Service group a US Presidential unit citation, which read: “For extraordinary heroism and outstanding performance of duty.” This, as a United States defence attaché stated yesterday, is an award seldom given in the United States, and even more rarely given to non - American service personnel. It reflects the exemplary behaviour and conduct of the New Zealand Special Air Service in the dangerous and difficult environment they faced in Afghanistan in December 2001. The New Zealand Special Air Service is a group that I have the utmost confidence will, when given a task to perform, carry it out with courage and skill, and deliver what has been asked of it. Again, it is a very special unit that all New Zealanders have the right to be proud of.

Ron Mark: Can the Minister confirm to the House the high level of regard the New Zealand Defence Force is held in by the Government of Afghanistan, the Governor of the Bamian province, and, significantly, the senior officers of the international security force in Afghanistan, as a result of the work that has been done by not only the New Zealand Special Air Service but also the men and women who have served in the provincial reconstruction team—regard that is exemplified, I think, by the comments made to Mr Goff and me by the commander of the 82nd Airborne battalion whilst we were in Afghanistan on Anzac Day?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I can confirm what the member has said. I had the opportunity in Afghanistan to talk to the President, the Vice-President, the Minister of Defence, and two other Ministers. All of them came back with the same comment, which was how much they appreciated that New Zealand Defence Force personnel had come so far to assist in the stability and development of their country. In fact, President Karzai said that it gave his people great confidence that New Zealanders had come from so far away to help them achieve peace and stability. I also had comments from the 4-star general in charge of the International Security Assistance Force, and the United Nations Secretary-General’s special representative. Both of those individuals described our provincial reconstruction team in Bamian as a model team, and a model for other countries to follow. Again, I think that what we have achieved in that country has been absolutely superb.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Through you, Madam Speaker, I would like to put on the record New Zealand First’s disgust at the heckling by the National Party members, like Sandra Goudie, during what we considered to be a very good report back by the Minister of the work done by our men and women in the New Zealand Defence Force.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is just to acknowledge to the House that we picked up from that questioning that Mr Mark is clearly a very important person in the defence arrangements of the Government, and we would not oppose leave should he choose to put his travel slides on the Table for us to view at a later time.

Madam SPEAKER: That is also not a point of order.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I seek the leave of the House to table two letters, one from the Commonwealth Secretary-General, and the second from the Chief of Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, which I referred to in answering the primary question.

Leave granted.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just want to make sure that, even though you dismissed Mr Brownlee’s point of order, his comments will be recorded in Hansard. I think it is very important that service people see them.

Gerry Brownlee: I am very happy to have the entire exchange put into Hansard—and, naturally, it will be, so the member is not getting anything he would not have got, anyway. But I think it is absolutely disgraceful that a member of Parliament stands up—

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please be seated.

Gerry Brownlee: —and tries to grandstand about how very important he is—

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please be seated. I am on my feet. [Interruption] Would the member please leave the Chamber. I am sorry, but I was on my feet for quite some time and the member just kept on ignoring me and talking. It was not a point of order. Of course the comments will go in Hansard. They are the normal rules.

Gerry Brownlee: There was no point of order in the first place.

Madam SPEAKER: Exactly, and that is the point I was making when you kept on talking over the top of me.

Gerry Brownlee withdrew from the Chamber.

Child, Youth and Family—Confidence

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

Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)): Yes, I do, because, unlike that member, I support the difficult hard work that the department and its social workers do.

Anne Tolley: How can the people of New Zealand have confidence when her department’s poor performance is the very reason Mataroa Barton, a convicted teenage sex offender who yesterday pleaded guilty to evading his supervisors at a Child, Youth and Family home at least eight times, has been given a second chance in the community only minutes away from one of his victims?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Actually, the District Court, on the recommendation of the Department of Corrections, recommended that that young man be detained in a secure facility, and I am confident that the District Court, understanding all the circumstances—rather than selective provisions, as that member chooses—is confident that the community is safe.

Russell Fairbrother: What is the very hard-working Child, Youth and Family doing to ensure the permanent placement of children and young people in the department’s care?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I am pleased to inform the House that, despite the best efforts of the member who asked the primary question to undermine the good work undertaken by Child, Youth and Family—

Madam SPEAKER: Will the Minister just address the question.

Hon RUTH DYSON: —it does have a robust permanency policy in place, and that is indicated by the fact that there has been a continuing trend downwards in the number of children, particularly those under 3 years of age, who remain in the care of the department.

Chris Tremain: Does the Minister think it is fair that a young woman and her daughter should have to consider vacating their home because they are frightened that Mataroa Barton has been placed by Child, Youth and Family back into their community, within walking distance of their home; and does the Minister not think that the rights of victims should come before those of criminals?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I want to make two points in relation to that question. The first is that the District Court made the decision, not Child, Youth and Family. The second point is that if that member of Parliament were serious about the security of his constituent, he may have thought twice about publishing her address on a publicly available website. That member put her address in the public domain. In my view, that is a serious threat and he should have reconsidered that action.

Chris Tremain: What assurances can the Minister give this Napier mother and daughter, and the wider Napier community, that they are 100 percent safe from Mataroa Barton, and that he will not escape his supervisors, given that he did escape at least eight times when he was under Child, Youth and Family care in the community recently?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I am confident that the process the District Court undertook gave it confidence that both the community and that young man would be safe. I invite the member to consider what the District Court process was, and to stop implying that Child, Youth and Family made this decision. It is nonsense.

Standards and Conformance Infrastructure Review—Response

11. MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce: What was the response to the standards and conformance infrastructure review and what changes will be made as a result?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): The review confirmed that the standards and conformance infrastructure plays a pivotal role in facilitating innovation as well as contributing to the Labour-led Government’s economic transformation and sustainability goals. The proposals include a reduction in the size of the membership of the Standards Council and Telarc, so that they can focus on the governance of Standards New Zealand and International Accreditation New Zealand respectively. The Standards Council will establish sector advisory boards to develop strategic plans that set the standardisation priorities across their sectors—a very good review.

Maryan Street: How will the announcement ensure that New Zealand’s standards and conformance infrastructure drives innovation and assists international trade?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Overseeing the whole standards and conformance infrastructure will be a regulatory forum that will include regulators, policy makers, standards and conformance bodies, and invited industry representatives. The forum will ensure that a strategic approach is adopted and that standards drive high-quality regulatory regimes, in accordance with international best practice. This is good for New Zealand and I look forward to the National Party’s question.

Benefits—Single Core Benefit

12. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does he agree with the claims of his predecessor, the Hon Steve Maharey, when he described the single core benefit as a world first and the most significant reform of New Zealand’s welfare system since 1938; if so, why?

Madam SPEAKER: I note that the Minister has a longish answer.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The member has slightly misquoted my predecessor, as she is wont to do. My colleague Mr Maharey said that the changes, which included both enhanced employment services and a move to the single core benefit, were a world first and would be the most significant reforms of the New Zealand welfare system since 1938. And, yes, I do agree. The changes we are working through are quite fundamental and are progressing very well. Phase one, which concentrates on enhanced employment services, began with a new service approach, which has just been rolled out to all service centres, whereby employment support services have been extended to all clients on a voluntary basis, related to what they can do, not to what they cannot, and on client needs, not on the name of any benefits they may be entitled to. The Social Security Amendment Bill, which is currently before Parliament, and which the National Party opposes, completes phase one by ensuring that clients who need employment support get the support they need. The bill will also align some rules and criteria for access to benefits in preparation for the next phase. As the member has been informed on a number of occasions, decisions about phase two, which comes after phase one, will be the simplification of actual benefit structures and will be made in 2008.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I suggest that perhaps you should scrutinise the answers that might be given. Our member asked a very precise question about the single core benefit. You gave permission to the Minister to give a longer answer. Most of the answer was not about the single core benefit and I feel that he has exploited your goodwill. It would be good if you indicated to the House that any answer that is long has to answer the question, not some question that he wished was asked.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I listened very carefully and the Minister was giving a very full explanation of the various phases of the single core benefit, as I heard it.

Judith Collins: Why is the Minister this week describing the single core benefit as “just renaming benefit categories”, when his predecessor, Steve Maharey, said in February 2005 that the Government was now ready for the next step, and that it was replacing the raft of benefits, rules, and entitlements with a single core benefit for all working-age clients?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Once again, sadly, the member completely misrepresents the statements I have made. I said, in fact, if she would like to consult Hansard and the documents I have released, that these changes are not simply about renaming benefits.

Judith Collins: If, as the Minister told Parliament on Tuesday, Cabinet still needs to decide on the single core benefit, why did Steve Maharey unveil it as policy on 24 February 2005, and why did the Labour Party campaign to “introduce a core benefit for working-age beneficiaries”?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Any objective assessment of what Mr Maharey said on 22 February, and the subsequent mystification coming from that member, will leave people in no doubt about what the actual situation is. I would say, though, that I am mystified, after repeated answers in this House, at the inability—or incapacity—of that member to understand these explanations. I know she and the select committee have been extensively briefed about these matters by the Ministry of Social Development. It may be that she missed out on that briefing, because I know she has a poor attendance record at the select committee—

Madam SPEAKER: That’s not relevant.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE:—but I am happy to offer that member a further briefing on this matter.

Judith Collins: Apart from all the personal insults and fibs, I ask—

Madam SPEAKER: Will the member just ask the question.

Judith Collins: Is the Minister now telling the House that when in January 2005—[Interruption] I say to Dr Cullen that we would have to prise him away from it first—Helen Clark described a single universal benefit in this way: “It’s very close to coming to a head.”, did she really mean it; and why does he not just admit that Labour has given up and abandoned the single core benefit that we told it would not work?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: What I am telling the House is that that Opposition can be assured that this Government will keep driving the changes that have led to a reduction of unemployment from 161,000, when those idiots were in power, to around 25,000 now.

Judith Collins: Who is telling the truth—is it Helen Clark, who announced at her post-Cabinet press conference on 14 February 2005 that Cabinet had approved plans for a new single core benefit, or is it the Minister, who told Parliament this week that Cabinet still needs to make that decision?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I repeat for at least the fifth time in the House this week that the first phase of implementation of these changes is already in place, and when Mrs Collins has the unfortunate circumstances of needing to go to Work and Income for support, she will find those services available to her.

Judith Collins: I seek the leave of the House to table the Dominion article from 17 July 2000 headed “Universal benefits on cards for 2002”.

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

Judith Collins: I seek leave to table the Dominion article headed “Government plans universal benefit by 2002”, dated 18 July 2000.

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

Judith Collins: I seek leave to table the article headed “Single benefit by 2002”, dated 31 July 2000.

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

Judith Collins: I seek leave to table the article from 3 August 2000 headed “Benefits of cast iron guarantees”.

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

Judith Collins: I seek leave to table the article from 31 January 2005 headed “PM set to unveil universal benefit”.

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

Judith Collins: I seek leave to table the article headed “Single benefit plans backed”, from 15 October 2005.

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

Judith Collins: I seek leave to table the article headed “Single benefit gets nod”, from 15 February 2005.

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

Judith Collins: I seek leave to table the article from 6 October 2005 headed “PM fleshes out single benefit plan”.

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

Judith Collins: I seek leave to table the article headed “Single benefit announced”, from 22 February 2005.

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

Judith Collins: I seek leave to table page 178 of the Labour Party’s 2005 election manifesto.

Leave granted.

( Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing. )

ENDS

© Scoop Media