Questions And Answers - Thursday, 23 August 2007

Questions to Ministers

Electoral Finance Bill—Participation in Parliamentary Democracy

1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement that the Electoral Finance Bill “will help promote participation in parliamentary democracy”; if so, why?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Yes; because the intent of the bill is to close loopholes in the current legislation that were exploited by the National Party and its various secretive wealthy supporters, whose aim was to overwhelm the participation by ordinary New Zealanders in the parliamentary democracy, through their million-dollar campaigns in 2005 that were designed specifically to subvert electoral spending limits.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister now ready and able to answer the questions I published this morning so that he would have notice, the first one being, is it the Government’s policy that a political journalist’s blog published on a commercial website but not in any newspaper should be considered to be election advertising; if not, why is such a blog captured by the bill’s definition of election advertising?

Hon MARK BURTON: I take it that this sort of juvenile stunt is the member’s idea of constructive engagement. As I indicated to the member yesterday, there is an exemption for the news media, and it includes material that the news media disseminates on the Internet, such as an online newspaper or a journalist’s blog. That is the Government’s policy. I will be perfectly relaxed, of course, if, in light of submissions to the select committee, the existing exemptions for the news media need further refinement.

Hon Peter Dunne: Whose bright idea was it to include provisions in the bill to now require each individual candidate’s return of election expenditure to be signed not only by the candidate, as is the current practice, but also by the party’s secretary and the party’s financial agent, and in some cases to be subject to an independent audit, the cost of which has to be borne by the candidate, when there are already severe penalties in place for any candidate who files a false declaration of election expenditure and there is no evidence, at least in the 23 years I have been a member of Parliament, of declarations having been falsified; can he explain to the House why he has allowed that piece of daft bureaucracy gone mad to proceed to this point?

Madam SPEAKER: The member has asked a question in silence. He is not sitting close to the Minister. Would members please enable the Minister to respond in such a way that he will be heard.

Hon MARK BURTON: That particular provision, to the best of my recollection, was drawn out of some of the international comparisons that were made across other jurisdictions, and is part of the overall provisions to provide greater accountability and transparency of the process.

Hon Bill English: Is it Government policy that if a political party is found to have exceeded its election spending cap, that party will not face any penalties or have to repay any money or pay any fine; if that is not Government policy, then why does the bill impose the penalties on one person only: the nominated financial agent?

Hon MARK BURTON: Of course that is not the Government’s policy, because the nominated financial agent is the nominated financial agent for the party. If the member reads the bill properly, he will find that clause 119 quite clearly lays out the obligation and responsibilities that also fall on the secretary, on behalf of the party, if he or she knows about, or should reasonably have known about, any such expenditure. So the member has again got it wrong.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Can the Minister confirm that one reason for specifying clearly who is responsible is that one of the National Party’s excuses for not paying its money back was that it claimed it did not know who was responsible in the party?

Hon MARK BURTON: That is precisely correct. There are also questions around some of the National Party’s friends and supporters, who managed to avoid accountability by having non-existent people at non-occupied addresses as the apparent sources of million-dollar advertising campaigns.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Are there greater requirements in this legislation for candidate electoral returns, given that a number of complaints were made in 2005 about grossly inadequate candidate electoral returns, yet the authorities failed in every case to act upon them; and would the Minister be interested to know which parties were rightly accused of having done just that?

Hon MARK BURTON: The matter the member raises has indeed informed this process and has led to some of the refinements that have been included in this bill. Of course, I would welcome any further advice from the member in terms of specific parties.

Hon Bill English: Is it Government policy that a pledge card such as the one issued by the Labour Party before the 2005 election, paid for by taxpayers through the parliamentary leader’s fund, would, in the next election, not count against the election expenses ceiling, and would therefore be legal in the next election when it was illegal in the previous election?

Hon MARK BURTON: It is clear that any qualifying election spending by any party counts towards the election spending cap. Costs legitimately incurred by electorate MPs who are going about legitimate parliamentary duties are not election spending. The former are dealt with by the Electoral Finance Bill; the latter are the province of the Parliamentary Service Act.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does this legislation propose more stringent requirements than those that applied, for example, in the 1999 case of Mauri Pacific, which failed to file even one electoral return—not one?

Hon MARK BURTON: Yes, the member is correct. The Electoral Finance Bill does indeed tighten up on the requirements. The very position that Mr English referred to in his earlier question is one of the consequences of earlier failings.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm rumours that the Labour Government is pushing for the Law Commission to be an adviser to the select committee process; is the Law Commission chaired by Geoffrey Palmer, and is that Geoffrey Palmer the same one who—

Hon Trevor Mallard: He’s a former bloody National Party member!

Hon Bill English: Yes, members can see why we kicked him out.

Madam SPEAKER: The member will please be seated. The member was interjected on by members from his own party, then there were interjections from the other side of the House. Would members please control themselves and allow the member to ask his question.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm rumours that the Labour Government will push for Sir Geoffrey Palmer, as chair of the Law Commission, to be an adviser to the select committee on the Electoral Finance Bill, and is that the same Sir Geoffrey Palmer who donated $11,000 to the Labour Party in the last return of donations?

Hon MARK BURTON: It is my understanding that at the select committee this morning, the appointment of the Law Commission as an adviser to the committee was agreed to. I am surprised that the member’s own colleagues have not given him that information. Perhaps if he had attended the committee, where meaningful engagement with regard to this issue takes place, rather than playing juvenile stunts with press statements, he would know what was going on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the bill seek to proscribe the activities of an organisation that is chauvinist, racist, and elitist, an organisation that believes that Māori, for example, are the descendants of the children of Cain, and an organisation whose members would not eat with one member in this House, in order to prevent that organisation from having a free-for-all behind closed doors and subscribing to one political party’s campaign; is that what is designed to be proscribed in this legislation?

Madam SPEAKER: I call the Hon Mark Burton.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With the greatest of respect, you know that I can take it in this House, but the fact of the matter is that Tau Henare, the member for—well, he is not a member for any seat, and he never will be, apart from when I put him in here on an armchair ride. From the time I started speaking to the time I finished, he did not stop shouting. With respect, that is not a fair go. I could hardly hear my own self speak, which is really a great shame.

Madam SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion. The member is right that all members have a right to ask their questions and to have those questions answered in a manner so that the member can be heard. I would ask members, however, when they are asking their questions and giving their answers, to do so succinctly and in a way that is not designed to provoke interjections.

Hon MARK BURTON: I can confirm to the member that any such organisation would be required to engage openly and in the light of day, not secretively behind closed doors. The spending limits would be applied to such an organisation, and it would not be able to channel a million dollars of secret funding to its political cronies in the National Party.

Hon Bill English: How does the Minister think it looks, when both he and the Prime Minister have stood in this House and said that all of this mess can be sorted out by the select committee, and then in the select committee Labour uses its majority to appoint as one of the advisers to the committee the personal legal adviser to the Prime Minister, someone who is a substantial donor to the Labour Party; does that not look like trying to screw the scrum?

Hon MARK BURTON: There are a number of points there. Firstly, the member completely misrepresented both my own comments and those of the Prime Minister. If that member disagrees with the notion that parliamentary select committees scrutinise, listen to submissions on, and add value to bills in Parliament, then we differ. I have always believed that parliamentary select committees have a useful role to play. Secondly, if Mr English, National’s current spokesperson on finance, thinks that four out of 13 constitutes a majority, then that explains a lot about why he lost the leadership.

Hon Bill English: Why does the Government think it could earn any goodwill at all on this legislation, when it has so deliberately decided in the select committee to appoint, as one of the committee’s advisers, a substantial donor to the Labour Party; someone—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Not on a Tory scale.

Hon Bill English: Is he a substantial donor or not? [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Bill English: Well, $11,000 is quite a big donation, by anyone’s measure. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please start again.

Hon Bill English: What sort of goodwill does the Government think it will—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: If there are any more comments, there will be members leaving the Chamber.

Hon Bill English: What sort of goodwill does the Government think it is earning, when this bill goes to the select committee and the Labour Party, along with New Zealand First and the Greens, votes against the minority in the committee and appoints as a principal adviser to the committee someone who gives personal legal advice to the Prime Minister and who is on the public record as a substantial donor to the Labour Party; and will any other parties have the right to appoint donors to give advice to the select committee?

Hon MARK BURTON: I see we are continuing the process of abuse of people of integrity and high standing in New Zealand. The president of the Law Commission—

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I could take exception to the term “abuse”. I just pointed out a fact, which is that Sir Geoffrey Palmer is listed as a substantial donor, of $11,000, to the Labour Party. None of the language I used was pejorative, none of it was personal, and none of it was abusive. So if the member uses that term again, I will take exception to it.

Madam SPEAKER: That was not a point of order; it was a matter of debate. But it does highlight that when asking questions and giving answers, one does that succinctly and without any added innuendo in either the questions or the answers. Would the Minister please address the question.

Hon MARK BURTON: The committee determines, on its own behalf, such matters—[Interruption] The member is not even interested in the answer, Madam Speaker. Firstly, the committee determines on its own behalf whom its advisers are; not the Government. Secondly, it has decided the president of the Law Commission is a suitable appointee. Thirdly, Mr English, a former Minister, was responsible in his previous portfolios for the nomination and appointment of a former National Government Prime Minister who I am sure—but I do not know this, because it was not a relevant matter—is a substantial donor to the National Party. He was appointed on merit and suitability for the appointment. I assume that the majority—and I say to Mr English that this is how democracy works—of the members of the committee determined the president of the New Zealand Law Commission was a suitable appointee as an adviser to the select committee.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Would the Minister now seek from the National Party a full list of all the anonymous donors to that party in 2005—since I think its donors consist of about two trusts and that was it—so that the select committee can consider whether any of them are suitable for appointment as advisers to the committee, or, indeed, whether any of them are already making submissions to the committee as completely independent, impartial persons?

Hon MARK BURTON: I would not only welcome but invite Mr English to provide that list.

Heather Roy: Does the Minister really believe that the flaws in the Electoral Finance Bill can be fixed in the select committee, or was the New Zealand Law Journal editor, Bernard Robertson, right when he wrote in his editorial that the bill should be scrapped?

Hon MARK BURTON: As to the last matter, that well-known National Party—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: No, ACT.

Hon MARK BURTON: —sorry, ACT party writer; I do apologise. It is hard to tell the difference between them; they all look the same to me. Do I believe that with the benefit of a 13-member, cross-party select committee and the benefit of submissions from many fine New Zealanders, a good bill can be made better? Of course it can!

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister correct me if I am wrong: the intention of this bill, as stated regularly in this House, is to prevent any substantial donor influencing the political process, and then, when the bill goes to the select committee to be fixed up so that it might do that, Labour then appoints one of its substantial political donors to influence the political process?

Hon MARK BURTON: I can confirm that a parliamentary—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: The answer to this question will now be heard in silence, and I hope the answer is succinct.

Hon MARK BURTON: I can confirm that a 13-member multiparty select committee has made a determination as to the appointment of an adviser. I can further advise, unlike many members, that an invitation has now been offered. No member of the select committee can be under any illusion as to that donation, unlike the donations of many others who may or may not be donors to the National Party. Who would know, because of the way in which those donations are hidden?

Hon Bill English: Was Sir Geoffrey Palmer consulted on the original policy and drafting of this bill?

Hon MARK BURTON: To my knowledge, no.

Auckland Public Transport—Government Investment

2. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: What reports, if any, has she received that show that the Government’s investment in public transport in Auckland is paying dividends?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport): Figures released on 9 August 2007 by the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and the Auckland Regional Council show that investment in Auckland transport by the region and the Government is getting results. Since 1999 Government funding for public transport in Auckland has increased from $18.1 million to $365 million. The Government funding has assisted the region to improve bus, rail, and ferry services, and to develop infrastructure, including new and upgraded stations, double tracking the western line, and the Britomart project. This has resulted in a 36 percent increase in patronage, from 38.6 million passengers in 1999 to more than 52.4 million passengers in 2006-07. Rail patronage has now reached 5.7 million trips per annum—a record for the past 5 years.

Darien Fenton: What future developments are expected?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Over the next 10 years the region will see more developments for public transport services and infrastructure, and there will be further improvements in rail, bus, and ferry services. The North Shore busway will be completed early next year. There will be the reopening of the Onehunga line in December 2009, smart-card integrated ticketing across Auckland by 2010, and electrification of the rail network by 2013. Tomorrow I will be opening the redeveloped railway station at Papakura—yet another example of a revitalised Auckland rail network and overall passenger transport services.

Keith Locke: Does the Minister agree that during the 2011 Rugby World Cup it would be great to be able to showcase Auckland as a world-class city; and, building on some of the steps forward—

Hon Trevor Mallard: You opposed the cup last night!

Keith Locke: I tell Mr Mallard that I am asking a friendly question.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please be seated. In this House it makes no difference whether the questions are friendly or unfriendly; all members are entitled to have their questions heard.

Keith Locke: I understand that, but Mr Mallard does not seem to know whom his friends and enemies are.

Madam SPEAKER: Just ask the question.

Keith Locke: I will start again. Does the Minister agree that during the 2011 Rugby World Cup it would be good to showcase Auckland as a city with a world-class public transport system; and, building on the steps that she has just referred to, does she think it is possible, and will she work towards, electrifying at least the Ōtāhuhu to New Lynn section of the Auckland passenger rail system, which I understand is feasible and might help get some of the patrons to the rugby games at Eden Park?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I think that all New Zealanders would want those who are visiting Auckland City to have the best possible transport system in place. That is what we have been working on. If it is possible to electrify the rail network in Auckland sooner, then we would certainly be keen to do that, but what we really want in the long term is a very good passenger rail service in Auckland. We certainly will not cut corners to do that, but I think that what we have put in place with the investment we are now seeing, after years of neglect, will mean that a good-quality service will be provided.

Peter Brown: Can I take it from the Minister’s answers that the success that is being achieved with public transport will have no adverse effect on the road building programme currently going on in Auckland, which that city desperately needs; can she give the House an assurance that it will not?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I certainly can, because when we look at investment in passenger transport, we see that it is a fraction of what is being spent on roads. Some of the argument has been that we have not invested enough into passenger transport to try to get some of the cars off the road and to get people into passenger transport, but we made a commitment to roads in New Zealand—State highways, major arterial routes, and local roads—through our 6-year funding package, which we continue to support. I think we ought to recognise the commitment that has been made to transport in New Zealand under this Government, and that is assisted, obviously, by our having good partners in Government.

Hospital Services—Emergency Departments

3. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: What did he mean when he said: “There are many reasons for increased numbers at emergency departments, one of which, paradoxically, is the improvement in service.”?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): What I meant can be found in the two sentences after that quote. Let me read the member the full quote. It had come as a reply to a question in the House a couple of months ago from Barbara Stewart of New Zealand First. She had asked a question regarding after-hours general practitioner services and emergency departments. I had replied: “There are many reasons for increased numbers at emergency departments, one of which, paradoxically, is the improvement in service. After-hours arrangements vary from district health board to district health board and include general practitioner services being co-located alongside emergency departments in some cases. It seems to work quite well for some district health boards.” That is what I meant.

Hon Tony Ryall: When the Minister listed yesterday a number of hospitals that are not providing an adequate service, why did he leave out Palmerston North Hospital, where an 8-year-old girl who broke both her arms in a schoolyard accident waited 5 hours even to get painkillers?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I have said to the member on many occasions that I am not able to answer questions around the details of individual cases. I am really happy to look into that case should the member wish to raise it with me—perhaps in writing, so that I have the young person’s name. I am very happy to do that. Indeed, anyone is entitled to lodge a complaint if he or she feels that the service received in an emergency department or any other part of a district health board is not up to scratch.

Hon Tony Ryall: Has the Minister thought about the impact of the emergency department crisis not only on the patients but also on the medical staff working in our emergency departments; and are reports correct that at 1 o’clock this morning, with patients lined up top to tail on trolleys in corridors at North Shore Hospital, a woman clinician collapsed, saying: “I can’t do this any more.”?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I have not heard of those reports, and I certainly hope they are not true, because it would be a very serious matter if a clinician collapsed while on duty. I will say, however, that 12 years ago at that same district health board, at the same time of the day—1 o’clock in the morning—an 80-year-old with a broken arm was thrown out of the hospital and told to make her own way home, in her nightie. She got home at 9 o’clock in the morning.

Sue Moroney: Are district health boards expanding the size of their emergency departments or the number of their in-patient beds given that these are possible bottlenecks during the annual winter flu season?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, they are, because the Government has given district health boards the money they need in order to expand where expansion is necessary. I mentioned in the House earlier that in the cases of North Shore Hospital and Waitakere Hospital in-patient beds are opening next month. Further beds in those two hospitals will open the following year. To give the member another example, I note that the number of cubicles in Christchurch Hospital’s emergency department will be increased by 16 before next year’s winter flu peak, and I think that takes the number from 39 to 55. So yes, hospitals can increase their capacity because this Government invests in health.

Hon Tony Ryall: Who does the Minister think he is kidding with these stories about action being taken when in fact it was his Prime Minister who promised she would remedy these situations, so much so that she promised Grey Power: “when the winter crop of influenza, bad asthma, and other problems hit, our hospitals in many centres just couldn’t cope. Patients were left in armchairs, corridors, operating theatres, and conference rooms. When an old person needs a hospital bed, a Labour Government is going to make sure they get it, and they can stay for as long as they like.”; and she has been there 8 years and absolutely nothing has happened, despite the $5 billion?

Hon PETE HODGSON: There is a bit of a routine in this House where the member who has just resumed his seat makes a statement to the effect that we have spent an extra 4 or 5 billion dollars and nothing has happened. Let me now tell him again some of the things that have happened. We have 4,000 extra nurses who did not exist before in our hospitals. We have 1,300, or thereabouts, extra doctors in our hospitals whom we did not have at the time of the change of Government. We have been building new hospitals, from Kaitāia to Invercargill inclusive. Some of them are little hospitals, and some of them are big hospitals. One of the biggest is just down the road here in Wellington. Hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into new hospitals. We have new beds, new services, new approaches to the range of care we are offering—

Madam SPEAKER: It is impossible to hear. I will have to ask members to leave the Chamber if this continues. Would the Minister please complete his answer in silence.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I will need to do so succinctly, which is a shame, because the range of improved health services under this Government goes on for page after page.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is the reason why the Minister had to rely on the Prime Minister to advise him of the difficult state of North Shore Hospital summed up in this comment by a New Zealand Herald reader, who said: “To the people languishing on Pete Hodgson’s waiting lists, my sincere sympathy. The health minister is more focused on the bed the National Party leader sleeps in than finding one for you. Hang your head in shame, Mr Hodgson.”?

Hon PETE HODGSON: There is one simple difference between the Leader of the Opposition and myself, and it is that whenever a question is put to me I answer it, and whenever a question is put to Mr Key he does not. He has a series of questions that remain unanswered, and I will continue to ask them.

Dr Jackie Blue: Has it occurred to the Minister that as the public health system crashes down around him, mums and dads just want essential services, like emergency departments, fixed; or is it that Labour’s great strategist is happiest when wallowing and swimming around in sewers, more concerned about where MPs live than the state of our health services?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The Opposition has decided to go for a bit of a ritual gumming. The front page of the Dominion Post that the member held up, to indicate that the health system is again in crisis, is a projection out to 2026 stating that we will need a lot more surgeons. We already know that, which is why we are training more surgeons, which is why the number of surgeons in New Zealand continues to rise. Actually, the projections of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons are, if anything, a little under what is likely to be needed. It is really good of it to do that workforce planning. I am grateful to it; it is not the first time it has done it, but I do not think there is a crisis. You see, if one has investment in the health system on one’s mind, one does manage to increase the services available to New Zealanders reliably.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table information that shows that for every one of the 1,200 extra doctors employed under the Labour Government, there is a matching new bureaucrat.

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

Leaky Homes—Liability

4. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What reports has he received on liability for leaky homes?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction): I have seen a report that a prominent public figure is demanding “greater commercial accountability” to “ensure that leaky home problems are not repeated”. As this Government has said all along, liable parties—those who developed, built, designed, and inspected leaky homes—must front up and pay up to fix their shoddy workmanship so that their victims can get their homes fixed and get on with their lives. The prominent public figure calling for greater commercial accountability is Mr John Key. I welcome his endorsement of the Government’s policy of making dodgy developers, designers, and builders front up, pay up, and accept their liability for leaky homes.

Lynne Pillay: What other reports has the Minister received on this issue?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I have also seen a report published today that claims that the directors of a company in the building industry are “trying to dodge leaky home liability”; that by voluntarily going into liquidation they are trying to cut and run and leave their leaky home victims with the mess and the repair bill; and that these directors are also company directors and business partners of one Mr John Key. I believe that it is proper that Mr Key explain to this House and to these leaky home victims what he is going to do to keep his word, as I outlined in my first answer, and ensure that his fellow directors and business partners are held to account for their actions so that they do not cut and run from their responsibilities.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the story in the Truth magazine is a plant by the Labour Party as part of its ongoing campaign to attack Mr Key’s character?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: No, I cannot confirm that, but I can confirm that Mr Key has—and I quote from the article—“a commercial property business with disgraced high-profile architects”, and I hope I pronounce his name correctly, “Colin Leuschke and Brian Cocker, who are caught up in a leaky building scandal”. The company in question, of which Mr Key and the said individuals are directors, is the Earl of Auckland Ltd.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: In the light of the last question, can the Minister confirm that the journalist concerned is a Mr Jock Anderson, a well-known right-wing journalist, and that one of the part-owners of Truth newspaper is Mr Matthew Hooton, who is well known for working with and for the National Party?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I believe that that is the case.

I seek leave to table—not page 3, I knew they would ask for that—pages 1 and 9 of the New Zealand Truth.

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

Government Departments—Contractors

5. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does his ministry comply with the Prime Minister’s statement that “The government expectation is that departments will build capacity, so are not routinely hiring contractors for their core functions.”; if not, why not?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) on behalf of the Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment: Yes.

Judith Collins: How can it be in accordance with the Prime Minister’s statement for his ministry to indulge in a $40 million spend-up on private contractors and consultants in only 3 years, plus another $15 million on marketing Labour’s Working for Families policy, while at the same time increasing the number of in-house spin doctors by 134 percent?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The member uses new maths in both her supplementary question and her press release of 17 July. The press release says that the ministry spent $17.2 million in 2005-06; actually, that figure was $13.5 million—$2.6 million was budgeted to be spent the following year. Further, Ms Collins counted parts of a contract with Saatchi and Saatchi for the yearly StudyLink campaign, to ensure that students knew that they could approach StudyLink online and thus reduce their waiting time, up to four times. She counted the same contract four times, because it was in the estimates information provided to the select committee four times. Rather than working out that that each mention applied to exactly the same contract, she just added them up. The question has about as much credibility as her maths.

Steve Chadwick: Is the Minister aware of any instances where ministries or departments have been unable to meet their core functions and responsibilities without using external consultants or contractors?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I am aware of the incident that led the Prime Minister to make the statement that the member used in her primary question. It was when Labour was elected to lead the Government in 1999, and the Public Service had been so badly run down by the previous 9 years of a National Government that the Department of Work and Income had to hire external consultants to write the briefing to the incoming Government. The Labour-led Government has focused on rebuilding core capability within the Public Service, unlike the National Party, which wants to slash public spending for tax cuts.

Judith Collins: Does the Minister agree that speech writing, literature reviews, and communication plans are core functions for in-house public relations staff; if he does, why has the Ministry of Social Development’s expenditure on private consultants to do this sort of work soared to record highs while at the same time his in-house public relations staff have increased from 23 people in 2001 to 54 today—

Hon Member: What!

Judith Collins: —yes, 54—which is a 134 percent increase?

Hon RUTH DYSON: As the member knows, there are some instances where it does make sense to use consultants and contractors—for example, where there are temporary increases in demand, where there are short-term—

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. Because members are sitting near the Chair, their constant interjections during the answer are probably louder and more troublesome than normal. I would ask those members please to wait for the Minister to answer the question; then they can have another supplementary question.

Hon RUTH DYSON: There are some instances where it does make sense to use consultants and contractors—for example, where there are temporary increases in demand, where there are short-term difficulties recruiting staff for permanent roles, or where specialist knowledge is required. It is also important to remember that in some areas—for example, the planning and execution of public awareness campaigns—most of the available expertise can actually only be sourced on a contractual basis. Our Government believes in the public of New Zealand knowing, understanding, and being able to receive their entitlement.

Judith Collins: Does the Minister stand by his statement when in Opposition that “Work and Income is a gravy train for consultants, and the public sector relies too much on contracted staff.”; if he does, why has he allowed his ministry’s spending on contractors to soar from $5 million in 2004 to $17 million last year; and if the department was a gravy train for consultants then, would it be fair to describe his ministry as a runaway gravy train for consultants now?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The member conveniently overlooks the fact that the former Department of Work and Income is not comparable with the current Ministry of Social Development. The Ministry of Social Development was, in the bad old days of her party leading the Government, part of a separate operation; it is no longer—in the same way as the former Department of Child, Youth and Family Services is now part of that ministry, and in the same way as the Ministry of Youth Affairs is now part of that ministry. She cannot get away with being so lazy as to compare apples with oranges. The fact is that in the days prior to 1999 the core functions of the Department of Work and Income, such as writing the briefing to the incoming new Government, had to be consulted out because of the rundown of the public service.

Judith Collins: Why, after all the staff increases and the $200,000 salaries, is the Minister’s ministry still employing contractors for advice, when 8 years ago the Prime Minister, in talking about the Department of Work and Income, said: “What can be more fundamental than advising a Government?” and “You have to get consultants to do it? What is going on at WINZ?”

Hon RUTH DYSON: I think the member should learn a lesson from Keith Locke and say “This is a friendly question.” The Department of Work and Income under the Government of that member’s party had to hire out to PricewaterhouseCoopers provision of the briefing to the incoming Government. There is nothing more core or fundamental, from a departmental view, than providing a briefing to an incoming Government. The member also conveniently overlooks the fact that the Ministry of Social Policy is no longer. We now have within the Ministry of Social Development Work and Income, which was previously separated; Child, Youth and Family, which was previously separated; the Ministry of Youth Development, which was previously separated; as well as two other new offices. If the member wants to ever gain an ounce of credibility, and restore the faith that her co-leader Bill English has never had in her, she should try presenting some facts in a question.

Judith Collins: Does the Minister agree with Helen Clark, who in 1999 said of the Department of Work and Income hiring consultants for core tasks: “You might expect it of a small agency which doesn’t have many staff, but for heaven’s sake this one would be the largest Government department.”; if so, why is it necessary for his ministry, which is the largest Government department, to hire record numbers of public relations consultants at the very same time that his in-house public relations staff team has ballooned to 54 people—a 134 percent increase in just 6 years?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The member can continue to compare two completely different scenarios, but it does nothing at all for her credibility. She cannot assume that advertising campaigns and the promotion of new entitlements should automatically be done within the baseline; that is not always the case. The funding for the advertising campaign for Working for Families was new, additional funding; it was allowed for in the new Budget item. It is not part of the contracting and consultancy fee, as it was made out to be in that member’s press statement; it is separate.

Judith Collins: I seek the leave of the House to table “What is going on at WINZ”—

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

Judith Collins: I seek leave to table a table of expenditure on consultants and contractors.

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

Judith Collins: I seek leave to table a table of staff numbers at the Ministry of Social Development showing the massive—

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

Carbon Neutrality—Diesel from Lignite Coal

6. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Energy: How will Solid Energy’s plan to produce around 50,000 barrels of diesel per day from Southland’s lignite coal contribute to achieving the Prime Minister’s goal of carbon neutrality, and is this what he had in mind when he said to a New Zealand Minerals Conference that coal as a resource represented a “considerable opportunity” in the new and evolving energy sector?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): The 2005 speech that the member quoted from was not given by me; nor was it given on my behalf. I think it was misreported in one newspaper. In terms of what was said by officials on the day, their next sentence stated: “The challenge is now with the industry to prove the technology exists to extract and process the resource while also managing carbon emissions.”

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can he confirm that carbon capture and storage, the technology that officials were referring to, is still unproven and likely to be very expensive, that it cannot be used in vehicles, and that therefore our emissions from transport would rise if diesel were made from coal?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I can confirm that carbon capture and storage technology is at an early stage. There are ventures to develop practical applications of it in Norway, in China, in North America, and, soon to be, in Australia. The point in respect of transport emissions is well made. Even if we sequester the carbon in the production of diesel from coal it would still have greenhouse gas emissions when used in an internal combustion motor, so from that point of view the member is correct. I would also note that Solid Energy, through its subsidiary Biodiesel New Zealand, is currently producing 1 million litres of bio-diesel a year, and today has announced that it is looking to expand that to 70 million litres per annum.

Darren Hughes: Can the Minister tell the House how substantial New Zealand’s lignite resources are, and could they be used in the future?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It is true that New Zealand has very large quantities of low-grade coal—lignite—and it is possible that these resources may be able to be used in the future for some purposes, without causing undue environmental harm. Also, I would add that it seems unlikely to me that this lignite would be developed without carbon capture and storage technology.

Peter Brown: Noting those answers, will the Minister be categoric and tell us whether he shares the view that the announcement by Solid Energy—that it can access enough lignite to support a world-scale liquid fuels plant for more than 40 years—is the best news the energy sector has received in a long time?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I think it is at such a preliminary stage—so many years in advance—and there are so many technological hurdles to be overcome, including carbon capture and storage, that even if it is good news it is many years into the future.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: In the light of that answer, can the Minister confirm that even if carbon capture and storage for the conversion of coal to diesel were to work perfectly—in other words around 90 percent, which is all anyone claims—and, given that nothing can be done then about the emissions from the diesel vehicles themselves, this would absolutely prevent New Zealand from ever achieving carbon neutrality?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I do not think I would go quite that far, but I certainly do not want to be seen as endorsing the suggestion that we should rush into coal-to-liquids conversions at this stage.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: What action will the Minister take under the New Zealand Energy Strategy, or what action will he recommend his colleagues the shareholding Ministers in Solid Energy take, to ensure that a State-owned enterprise cannot sabotage his Government’s goals to address climate change?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Solid Energy is at only a pretty preliminary stage of this, and it is well aware that in order for a project of this magnitude to proceed, it would have to cross environmental hurdles and would also require funding approval from shareholding Ministers.

Evidence Act 2006—Implementation

7. CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Minister of Justice: Is he satisfied with the work the Ministry of Justice is doing to implement the Evidence Act 2006; if so, why?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): I am advised that the implementation work, which now, of course, largely lies with other agencies such as the police and the judiciary, is proceeding. There is a matter relating to overseas practitioners’ privilege that officials are currently working through, and I expect them to report to me on this matter in the next few weeks.

Christopher Finlayson: Why, according to his ministry, are there no current plans to designate countries under section 51 of the Evidence Act to allow legal professional privilege to apply to advice from lawyers from countries other than New Zealand or Australia?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I indicated in my primary answer, this is the very matter that officials are engaged on as we speak.

Christopher Finlayson: Is the Minister not concerned that the slowness of the ministry to deal with this issue, and the refusal to specify countries by Order in Council under section 51, may well deter overseas-based countries from investing in, or doing business with, New Zealand, because of the risk involved in overseas legal advice not being privileged in court proceedings in this country that are under way now?

Hon MARK BURTON: I think the member misrepresents the facts. The member suggested that officials have refused to do something. There has been no such refusal. This matter was raised and added to the bill, as the member knows, during the select committee process. I would say to Mr English that that is a good example of what happens at select committees; they tend to do things to bills and add things to them. Of course, the report of that committee to the House simply noted the addition; it did not suggest any urgency of putting that into operation by way of an Order in Council. The matter is being looked at, the work is well advanced, I will have a report in the next few weeks, and I will take action on that report.

Christopher Finlayson: Is the member not concerned, notwithstanding his comment that he would have reports “in the next few weeks”, about the impact on New Zealand’s reputation with its trading partners of the current position today, that this country does not recognise legal advice from lawyers practising in their jurisdictions as being worthy of attracting legal professional privilege now?

Hon MARK BURTON: The reason I have the work being done is that obviously I am concerned that we attend to the matter that requires attention. I am equally concerned that the member, in using descriptions such as the one he just used, suggests that the problem is much broader than it actually is. The matter of privilege relates only to advice given and later used in a proceeding, and the member well knows that. He should not give the impression that it applies much more broadly to other matters that lawyers from other jurisdictions may be dealing with.

Christopher Finlayson: Why are the Minister and his ministry taking such a slap-dash approach to this issue, when they were informed of the urgency of this matter 2 weeks ago?

Hon MARK BURTON: As the member says, the matter was raised 2 weeks ago. Officials have been instructed to thoroughly examine the issue and prepare advice, and that advice will be acted on quickly.

Broadband Network—Reports

8. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Communications: Has he received any further reports on broadband in New Zealand?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications): Yes. I have seen a report in the New Zealand Herald on Saturday 18 August headed “Ringing the changes”. The article states: “the brave new world of competition is finally upon us.” It refers to the many positive changes occurring under this Labour-led Government. It goes on to say: “Consumers should brace themselves for … more deals that bundle together mobile, land line and broadband … faster and flasher services for computers and mobile phones.” This is brought about by local loop unbundling and results in cheaper competitive services being offered by Orcon, Vodafone, and TelstraClear, which is emerging as a third serious competitor in the mobile market.

Charles Chauvel: What initiatives has he recently introduced to consolidate and drive forward the Government’s telecommunications revolution, and what are the implications of these moves?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: There is more good news. I have recently announced a mega-auction of wireless broadband spectrum that will result in better and cheaper services to rural New Zealand in particular. We have also announced a first-principles review of the old Kiwi share obligation, now known as the Telecom service obligation, to enhance rural and provincial broadband services. The result will be faster, cheaper broadband for all New Zealanders. Given the Government’s efforts to bring competition to the market, there will soon be no need for people to piggyback illegally off their neighbours’ broadband services, as has been reported by Chris Keall on the PC World web page on 27 July as occurring in Parnell around the household of one John Key.

Hon Maurice Williamson: I seek leave to table three documents. The first is a target of New Zealand being in the top half of the OECD.

Leave granted.

Hon Maurice Williamson: The second is the OECD table showing that when the Government came to power we were actually 20th.

Leave granted.

Hon Maurice Williamson: The third is the OECD document of recent times showing we have dropped to 22nd.

Leave granted.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I seek leave to table a page from a weblog called ”Chris Keall Daily” that draws attention to the problem of inappropriate piggybacking of neighbours’ broadband.

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

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I seek leave to table an article from the New Zealand Herald of 18 August 2007 highlighting improved competition in broadband.

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

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I seek leave to table an article in today’s New Zealand Herald headed “Telcos want chance to serve all customers” complimenting the Government on—

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

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I seek leave to table an article from the Dominion Post on 20 August that compliments the Government on its telecommunications service obligation review.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a Treasury report of May 1998 in which Treasury recommended the end of Telecom’s monopoly, which Maurice Williamson and the then National Party sought—for their own reasons, which are beyond me—to stall ever since.

Leave granted.

Senior Citizens—Initiatives

9. BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to the Associate Minister for Senior Citizens: What reports has he received regarding initiatives to improve the lives of our senior citizens?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Associate Minister for Senior Citizens): I have received some wonderful reports on two levels. First of all, there is wide acceptance of the appointments of the Minister and her associate, namely Ruth Dyson and yours truly. On the second issue, it is with great pleasure that I can inform the House that the SuperGold card will be launched next week, on 29 August, in Auckland. This initiative will give our seniors—

Hon Maurice Williamson: He’s got a conflict of interest.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the former leader of the National Party will qualify; he will get a golden age card next week, as I said he would. This initiative will give our seniors access to a wide range of commercial discounts, as well as easier access to Government and local government services.

Barbara Stewart: How will those who are entitled to the card be receiving it, and how will they know how to use it?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: [Interruption] You know, some talk and some do. The new SuperGold cards will be sent automatically to those who are currently receiving New Zealand superannuation, to those who are over 65 and receive a community services card, and to veterans who receive a veterans pension. The new card will replace the community services card, and will be called the New Zealand SuperGold card. The card will come with a detailed carrier sheet with all the relevant information, including a freephone contact number for any queries, which I will read out very slowly: 0800 254 565.

Hon David Carter: Can the Minister clarify, for the benefit of the House, whether this is the third time or the fourth time that he has announced this card?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I think it is probably the 1,000th time, because good news needs to be repeated over and over again. Of course, given the track record of the party that the questioner belongs to when it comes to older people, I would think the best thing that party could do is to fly a white flag and clap.

Barbara Stewart: How has the card been received by key stakeholders?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, there is more good news. This week the heads of both Grey Power and Age Concern were briefed regarding the card. Both were extremely complimentary and graciously thanked us for this positive development. Given that endorsement, it would seem petty for those who have done nothing to lift the burden on our seniors to now criticise this positive initiative. As I have said, some talk and some do.

Barbara Stewart: What other initiatives has New Zealand First initiated for our seniors?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Just as a clue, I say that one of the discounts that is to be named next week is 40 percent off the retail rate charged to other people in the market place. Now that is a pretty substantial discount, but I cannot give the details of that today. New Zealand First ensured, as members know, that part of our supply and confidence agreement included a provision that the base rate of New Zealand superannuation be lifted to 66 percent of the net average wage for married couples. As at 1 April this year, that meant for married couples $20 per week more, and for singles between $12 and $13 more, depending on their circumstances. In addition, we negotiated an additional $530 million for the elder-care sector, over two Budgets. Some talk; some do.

Treaty Settlements—Initiation and Settlement

10. CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: How many historic Treaty settlements has the Labour-led Government taken from initial start negotiations through to the passing of settlement legislation since 1999?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): This Government began negotiations with Ngā Rauru in 2000, and legislation was passed in 2005. In addition, since Labour took office in November 1999, a further nine deeds of settlement have been reached with Te Uri o Hau, Ngāti Ruanui, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Awa, Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty, Ngāti Mutunga, Ngāti Roroa, Te Arawa Lakes, and affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū. It is easy to open the door to start a Treaty settlement negotiation. It is far harder to undertake the long journey to bring them to a successful conclusion. This Government’s record shows that we are doing just that.

Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question was very succinct and very precise. I was talking about negotiations from initial start negotiations through to the passing of settlement legislation. The nonsense the Minister spouted was—

Madam SPEAKER: I listened very carefully. The Minister did address the question.

Christopher Finlayson: Can the Minister confirm that included in his list of settlements fully settled, is the Te Arawa affiliate settlement, even though the settlement legislation has not even had its first reading?

Hon MARK BURTON: I cannot confirm that, because it is not what I said. The member should pay attention.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Can the Minister confirm whether the two largest settlements to date have contributed to the time that subsequent claims have taken to settle, and that these two settlements will continue to impact on the determination of the quantum arrived at for future claims between the Crown and iwi?

Hon MARK BURTON: There is no question that the ratchet clause in those two settlements does just that, and although that was part of the settlement structure for those two agreements, it does, on a daily basis, impact on, and make more complex and difficult, subsequent claims.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Does he stand by his comments made in the New Zealand Herald this morning that, despite the grave concerns expressed by the Waitangi Tribunal about the interests of overlapping hapū, and the durability of future central North Island settlements, “the Government would be moving ahead with the settlement and it was up to interest group to organise their own hui”; and would he not consider this a huge insult to the Waitangi Tribunal, the Federation of Māori Authorities, the New Zealand Māori Council, and the other competing central North Island iwi, including Te Arawa and Ngāti Tūwharetoa; if not, why not?

Hon MARK BURTON: I regret cannot confirm that I have seen that particular quote in the New Zealand Herald, but it does not sound like an accurate reflection of my position. What I have said in recent interviews on that matter is two things: first, the Crown has an absolute obligation of good faith to those with whom we have negotiated, and, as a matter of honour, we must observe the detail of our negotiated agreement, should the claimant group require that, in good faith. Secondly, I have said the Crown welcomes any opportunity to engage with, and support, the efforts of those who seek to find resolution to the wider issues around central North Island settlement, and if indeed an alternative strategy emerges that is acceptable to all, including those with whom the Crown has already negotiated, then I, and the Crown, would welcome that.

Christopher Finlayson: Does he agree with Ngāti Arawa’s commercial negotiator that “I do not think there has been leadership under this Government.”, and why does he think that even claimant groups his Government have negotiated with are saying there is no political leadership under Labour?

Hon MARK BURTON: No, I do not agree with that statement, because it is factually incorrect. For the member who aspires to hold this job—indeed, issues press statements already calling himself the National Minister, which I think is a little presumptuous—I suggest to the member that he attend to just how difficult the process is. It requires good-faith engagement, and one of the aspects of good faith is that when organisations are in negotiation, part of the agreement they reach is that they do not make comment through the media; they talk to each other. That is what I actually do in my engagement with those with whom I am negotiating.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Why has the Government ignored the Waitangi Tribunal’s recommendation to delay the Te Arawa settlement, after the tribunal identified the Crown as being in the game of picking favourites and making decisions on tribal groups, based on inadequate information, or is this latest decision a case of “settle at all costs”, despite the stern criticism of the way the Crown mismanages settlements?

Hon MARK BURTON: I will not repeat my first answer in full, but I would refer the member to it. As I indicated, there are two issues: one is the question of obligation because of undertakings given in good faith to mandated negotiators. Were I to simply abandon those good-faith undertakings, given on behalf of the Crown, I would be certainly in breach of earlier recommendations of the same Waitangi Tribunal. I certainly am not ignoring, nor is the Crown, the advice of the tribunal, but one of the things we are working through is trying to reconcile conflicting advice from the tribunal. That is one of the many matters I will be engaging with them on over the coming weeks.

Christopher Finlayson: If the Labour-led Government has not been dragging its heels in completing Treaty settlements, why has it taken an average of almost 21 months to progress from signing a deed of settlement to passing settlement legislation under Labour, when the same process took just 9 months under the National Government of the 1990s?

Hon MARK BURTON: That question demonstrates just what an absurd and simplistic notion that member has of the uniqueness of each individual settlement process. The member, for instance, ignores the fact of the numerous settlements that were started in the 1990s that had to be completed by this Government because they had not been completed. The member ignores that five of the negotiations and settlements he is referring to were tiny settlements of less than $1 million, none of which required settlement legislation. The member needs to do a great deal more homework before again describing himself as the Minister of anything.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What response does the Minister have to the concern from the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that “Recommendations made by the Waitangi Tribunal are generally not binding, and that only a small percentage of these recommendations are followed by the Government.”, a situation that the committee considers “deprives claimants of a right to effective remedy and weakens their position when entering into negotiations with the Crown.”?

Hon MARK BURTON: I do not share the committee’s view, nor do I think the committee necessarily demonstrated in those remarks a complete understanding of the role and the jurisdictional differences between the tribunal and those of a court, for instance.

Christopher Finlayson: What responsibility does the Minister’s predecessor have for the stalling of the Treaty settlement process when groups who had to negotiate with her have stated: “We had three or four meetings at most with the Minister’s predecessor, none of which achieved anything. We expressed our concerns and she noted them, and nothing else happened.”?

Hon MARK BURTON: I think it is fair to say that my predecessor presided over a process of putting in place a sensible, credible, systematic process of Treaty engagement and settlement. Frankly, that contrasts with the consequences of not having such a framework that we saw in the dying moments of the last National Government as it tried to rush through the Whakatōhea settlement, which, of course, it cooked up, and which collapsed shortly after the election.

Electricity—Emissions

11. H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: What reports, if any, has he received on efforts to reduce electricity-related emissions?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): Today Genesis Energy released a report showing that in its first month of operation the E3P plant at Huntly has significantly has reduced electricity-related emissions because less coal was burned. This is good progress. New Zealand also has abundant cost-effective renewables awaiting development. These will contribute further to the Government’s goal of carbon neutrality. Project West Wind, for example, at peak will provide enough electricity for Wellington, and there is plenty more where that came from.

H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that he has received reports that total carbon emissions from Huntly in July were 32 percent down on the same period last year?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Indeed, I can. The Huntly greenhouse gas emissions were one-third lower last month than they were in the same month last year. This is good news. In the same announcement—and I think this was quite a significant announcement today—Genesis stated that its intention is to progressively retire Huntly into a drought-year reserve role. This is good news, and it is significant, both in terms of reduced greenhouse gas emissions and drought-year security margins. I will be urging the Electricity Commission, Genesis, and other market participants to progress their consideration of how this additional dry-year reserve can best be incorporated into the system in coming years.

Metiria Turei: Can the Minister see any reason at all for Genesis to build a new gas-fired power station, or for that matter for Solid Energy to build a new lignite-fired power station when, according to the New Zealand Energy Strategy, there is around 4,500 megawatts of geothermal and wind resource available at less than the cost of either gas or coal?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It is true that the New Zealand Energy Strategy does make it clear that New Zealand has considerable renewable energy resources that, if we can consent them—and I am confident we will be able to—will be affordable. Indeed, they are shown in that document to be at less than the cost of fossil fuels, and that issue is one that will be considered in the final energy strategy.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Can the Minister advise how an electricity company might account to a customer for electricity and the related emissions if that customer lives in one house, votes from a second house, and attaches his companies to a third house?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No I cannot. I think I would be a bit like an electricity company—I would be a bit confused by that. But I suppose, knowing electricity companies as I do, that they would cover their bases and send three separate bills.

H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister confirm for the House that security of supply will be assured despite lower carbon emissions; and can the Minister guarantee that the lights will stay on at all addresses across Auckland from as far north as Helensville to as far south as Remuera given that lights at some of these addresses appear to be fading already?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I can confirm that having more dry-year reserve in the electricity system would be a very good thing, and that would improve security margins not just in Auckland but across the whole of New Zealand.

Clothing Standards—Safety

12. KATE WILKINSON (National) to the Minister of Consumer Affairs: Does she stand by her statement in the House yesterday that “We have very good standards, and we see them enforced.”; if so, why?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs): Yes. Under the Consumer Guarantees Act all goods sold in New Zealand must be safe and fit for the purpose for which they are intended. Recent voluntary recalls are one of the examples of the system working well.

Kate Wilkinson: How can we possibly have very good standards, when many nations, including the United States, Japan, and the nations that make up the European Union, have all implemented standards against adverse formaldehyde levels, yet this Government is still allowing poisonous pyjamas to be sold to unaware parents, despite tests showing levels up to 900 times the amount that causes harm?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: International standards for formaldehyde in clothing and textiles range from 20 parts per million to 1,700 parts per million, and those standards are considered safe in, respectively, Japan and Germany. What we are saying is that goods must be safe and fit for the purpose for which they are intended, and we are now testing a range of clothes, which will determine whether they are safe and fit for their purpose under New Zealand’s understanding of that. If they are not, then swift and appropriate action will be taken. We are using for the test the current European standard. I also point out that clothing needs to be labelled and that formaldehyde is water soluble. So washing clothes and airing them means that they will be safe.

Kate Wilkinson: How can she tell us that the New Zealand system is working when only 17 product recalls have occurred in New Zealand in the past year, compared with more than 200 in Australia in the same time, and when the blankets recalled yesterday because of adverse formaldehyde levels were the same as those recalled a month ago in Australia for exactly the same reason?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: It is often because those goods that have been recalled in Australia may not be available in New Zealand. For example, the importer of the blankets the member refers to is not even sure whether any of those blankets have been sold in New Zealand. We are taking appropriate action, and the whole of the New Zealand system works by a chain of responsibility, from manufacturers and importers through to retailers and citizens. I am fascinated that the representative of the party that is supposed to be about advocating individual responsibility and supporting robust markets now appears to want the taxpayer to have an officer—a bureaucrat—standing next to every consumer. We take responsibility at every step.

Kate Wilkinson: Is she still planning to meet with the Chinese Ambassador, as she said she would last Sunday; if so, how exactly will such a meeting protect and keep our children safe from the flaming and poisonous pyjamas that have come from a number of countries?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: What I said on Sunday, having consulted with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade, was that when the tests come back, I will, if it is necessary, ask the Chinese Ambassador to come and discuss what steps China is taking to make sure the goods that are manufactured there are safe. I would very vehemently support the New Zealand Herald editorial this morning, which stated that we need to keep these problems in perspective and that nobody wins a trade war: “The embarrassments China has suffered will turn out for the better if importing countries keep a sense of proportion and do not exploit them for short-sighted protection …”—or, I should say, for political advantage. New Zealanders can be confident that we have good systems.

Kate Wilkinson: Will the Minister then answer the question she did not answer yesterday and tell us why there is a standard for the size of small parts in toys for children but no specific standards for the chemicals used to produce clothes for children or for the use of lead in paint to produce the toys for children?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: New Zealand has very good health standards for lead in paint. Any painter and anyone with an old house will tell us that. I would also say that we have standards where there is a danger demonstrated. So children have died through choking by swallowing small parts that have come off toys and other objects. It is a very serious matter. It is a very serious matter, and that is why we have standards. I have not yet seen any demonstrated proof that anyone in New Zealand is at risk from formaldehyde, although I would point out that my mother, as a zoologist, used to work with her hands in formalin, and is, at age 76, in rude good health.

Madam SPEAKER: We will end question time in silence.

Kate Wilkinson: What response does she have to the press release that stated: “As responses go, the Minister, on behalf of her government, appears not to be interested in dealing with a crisis that is occurring right here, right now ...”?

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister will give the House a succinct answer to finish question time.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: I would say that as Minister of Consumer Affairs I am passionately concerned about the well-being of New Zealanders—all of them: children and adults. We have overarching legislation that enforces very good standards of health, and, where there is any demonstrated danger, we take very quick action.

ENDS

© Scoop Media