Questions for Oral Answer - Tuesday, 11 September 2007

Questions to Ministers

Ministers—Confidence

1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in all her Ministers, and are they all hard-working and conscientious?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes and yes.

John Key: Did the Prime Minister refuse Damien O’Connor’s resignation “at this time” because she has full confidence in his performance as a Minister, or for reasons of pure political expediency—that removing him prior to her reshuffle just did not quite suit her at the moment?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister indicated that she thought Mr O’Connor had shown poor judgment over the matter but that it was not a hanging offence.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister believe that Mr O’Connor was fully briefed and therefore had an opportunity to consider the merits or otherwise of Mr Morgan travelling with the parliamentary rugby team?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not understand the purport of the question. In relation to Mr Morgan’s position in terms of being suspended, those matters have been delegated to Mr Cosgrove.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister believe that Mr O’Connor was fully briefed about the issues, merits, or otherwise of Mr Morgan—a suspended Department of Corrections officer—travelling with the parliamentary team, of which Mr O’Connor was the co-captain, on a rugby trip, when Mr O’Connor is the Minister of Corrections?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Mr O’Connor was not fully briefed in relation to Mr Morgan. All matters in relation to those suspensions were delegated to Mr Cosgrove because of Mr O’Connor’s connection to Mr Morgan’s wife.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr O’Connor was briefed in his office by Marie Morgan, Mr Morgan’s wife, that during that discussion and briefing the full ramifications of Mr Morgan’s inclusion in the team were discussed, and that, despite this, Mr O’Connor continued with the proposed trip without seeking to exclude either himself or Mr Morgan?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: My understanding is that Mrs Morgan asked Mr O’Connor whether he thought it was appropriate for Mr Morgan to go on the trip. Mrs Morgan was the manager of the team, of which Mr McCully was the co-captain. I further understand that the National MPs, when they became fully aware of the facts while overseas, discussed them and resolved to come back home and tell Mr Key to shut up about them.

Heather Roy: Is the Prime Minister aware of the nature of the allegations against Rimutaka Prison manager, Jim Morgan, that have seen him suspended, and was it the seriousness of these allegations that led her to conclude that it was “a bad call” for the Minister of Corrections to take him on a parliamentary rugby trip?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: My understanding is that there has been only the most general of briefings in regard to that particular matter. The issue, of course, was that Mr Morgan was suspended because of inquiries being made, and therefore it was the judgment of the Prime Minister that it was a bad call that he was taken at all, whatever the nature of the investigations.

John Key: What does it say about the judgment of Mr O’Connor that having received a briefing, and with time to consider the issues, he still went ahead and included Mr Morgan in the team or took no action to exclude himself?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member continues to make an assertion in that question; I am not quite sure what he means by a briefing. My understanding is that Mrs Morgan asked Mr O’Connor whether he thought it was appropriate for Mr Morgan to go on the trip in light of the fact that he was suspended. As far as I am aware, no other person was present in the room, so it is difficult to understand what the basis of Mr Key’s assertion is.

Nandor Tanczos: Does the Prime Minister find it bizarre that the Leader of the Opposition is gunning for the head of Damien O’Connor over whom he selected for a rugby team?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: My understanding is that Mr Morgan had been a member of the rugby team for 3 years, and Mr O’Connor held the view that as anybody is innocent until proven guilty, unless of course he or she is associated with a Labour Government as far as the National Party is concerned, there was nothing wrong. That clearly was not a good call, given the fact that the person was suspended and because of the close connection to Mr O’Connor.

John Key: Why was her Government prepared to act by sacking Madeleine Setchell for a perceived conflict of interest, yet tolerated the inclusion of a suspended corrections officer who is under investigation and when there is an actual conflict of interest?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I know that the member has repeated this many, many times, but the Government did not sack Madeleine Setchell.

Schools—Funding

2. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reports has he received on possible changes to school funding?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): I have seen one report advocating the reintroduction of bulk funding, and another arguing “it could be the most divisive and possibly the most destructive change in our education system.” The first comment was made by a man who wants to be the Minister of Education if there ever is a future National Government, Mr Allan Peachey, and the second comment was made by a former National Party MP, Tony Steel. Tony Steel knows that bulk funding was a failure, but the National Government has learnt nothing during its 8 years in Opposition.

Moana Mackey: What other reports has he received about possible changes to school funding?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have seen further reports arguing that low-decile schools are “awash with cash”, and that “the chequebook won’t solve the problem.” Those comments came from Bill English. In contrast, I am told that Katherine Rich was on radio in Dunedin this week, arguing that schools need more money—yet another example of how National tells one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Has the Minister received any reports or suggestions that the bulk funding of salaries should be compulsory, has he any indication that such a policy would not be resisted as bitterly by the New Zealand Educational Institute and the Post Primary Teachers Association as it was during the late 1980s and the whole of the 1990s, and does he believe constructive educational development can occur in such an antagonistic environment?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have seen that proposal, which was put forward by Mr Key. I note that Mr Key has also argued that New Zealand’s education funding is already amongst the top within Western nations and that no more money is required for education. So if a National Government were ever elected, the education sector could get ready for bulk funding to be rammed down its throat at a cheap rate without consultation, exactly as National did last time it was in office.

Katherine Rich: As the Minister is so interested in the history of bulk funding, will he confirm that bulk funding first appeared on the horizon in the Picot report Administering for Excellence before being made part of Labour’s Tomorrow’s Schools policy in 1989, a policy that was overseen by his colleague sitting beside him, Phil Goff?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: That is an excellent question, because it demonstrates that the Labour Patty can learn and that the National Party cannot.

Moana Mackey: Has the Minister seen any reports that suggest the private sector could play a bigger role in the provision of schooling and new schools should be built by the private sector; if so, does he intend to adopt such policies?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I just happen to have seen those reports. I have seen a report arguing “there’s plenty of opportunities to have the private sector playing a bigger role” and that there should be a greater “orientation towards privatisation” in the education system. Those arguments were put forward by none other than Mr John Key, no doubt meaning that apart from bulk funding we also have privatisation back on National’s agenda.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Can the Minister confirm that the Labour Party bulk-funding policy advocated by the Hon Phil Goff was in fact based on the average teacher salary scale, which meant that teachers would have had to have been sacked in order to keep within the limits, and that the system of top-of-the-scale funding that New Zealand First agreed to was voluntary and also required a commitment to a national collective contract?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can confirm that that was the policy advocated by Mr Phil Goff. The point the member raises is why, of course, the policy in the end was not advanced: because we can learn from consultation—we are an excellent Government. I say to the member on this side of the House that if one funds at the top of the scale, even in those dollars we are talking about another $350 million. The National Party has never promised a single cent. It has promised only to cut education spending. Bulk funding, slashed funding—is that what this country wants? Of course, New Zealand First would never support that.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a schedule of comments on education funding by the Hon Arthur Kinsella, National’s Minister of Education in the—

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

Corrections Department—Confidence

3. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his statement, with regard to following up allegations of corruption against prison staff, that “I will not tolerate any behaviour that undermines the credibility of the department.”; if so, does he apply this same standard to his own actions as Minister and to all actions of Department of Corrections staff?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where’s he hiding?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Corrections: He is not. The answer is yes.

Simon Power: Did the Minister offer to resign over the Graeme Burton debacle, the death of Liam Ashley, or any of the other scandals that have happened in his department under his watch prior to offering to resign last night because he ruined the Prime Minister’s APEC trip; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. The Minister took full responsibility for addressing the system failures that led to those matters. The last named matter, of course, in terms of what happened with the rugby tour, was a purely personal matter and not a systems issue at all.

Simon Power: What message does it send to those conducting the inquiry into corruption at Rimutaka Prison when someone who has been suspended because of allegations against him accompanies the Minister of Corrections on an overseas rugby tour, and do his actions not undermine the credibility of his department in conducting this very inquiry?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It should send no message at all. The inquiry is independent. The Hon Clayton Cosgrove has ministerial responsibility in relation to those allegations and inquiries, not the Hon Damien O’Connor.

Simon Power: How can any moves the Minister makes to deal with corruption or shortcomings in his department now be taken as serious or credible when he has completely undermined his objectivity and neutrality in carrying out such tasks by allowing a suspended corrections officer to accompany him on a parliamentary trip?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Minister has quite clearly said that he believes he made a bad call in that regard. He certainly had no intention of indicating any view in any shape or form about the nature of the inquiries other than, of course, the fact that Mr Morgan, like anybody else, is innocent until found guilty—unlike, of course, Dr Smith, who was found guilty. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I remind members that interjections do get responses.

Simon Power: How can the Minister offer his resignation for a lack of judgment and then, when it is rejected, turn round and tell the public they should have confidence in his competence as a Minister?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There is a large list of achievements in the corrections area, notably: a massive reduction in prison escapes, a massive reduction in serious prisoner assaults on staff, a massive reduction in serious prisoner assaults on others, a restructuring of the head office of the department and of the prison service, and a massive increase in the capacity of the prison service. So for all the failures, which have occurred over a very long period of time—and I do not know of a single corrections system anywhere in the world that does not have failures from time to time—many achievements have occurred.

Simon Power: What does he say to the many decent, hard-working staff in the corrections system who have been told by the Prime Minister that the Minister of Corrections will stay on as their Minister as punishment for his mistake, when they deserve a Minister who is competent and actually wants the job?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That, of course, is not what the Prime Minister actually said—the ability of the National Party to misquote is quite remarkable. What the Prime Minister said, of course, was that this was one of the more difficult portfolios because of the fact that from time to time things do go wrong in corrections.

Simon Power: Why did he delegate responsibility for Mr Morgan’s investigation to the Associate Minister of Justice, Clayton Cosgrove, when he actually has an Associate Minister of Corrections called Mita Ririnui; or has he conceded defeat and started handing over his job prior to the reshuffle?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Following the notification of the fact that Mr Morgan had been suspended, proceedings began within a matter of days as to the best Minister to which, in these circumstances, to delegate any matters in relation to Mr Morgan. It was considered best, in fact, to have a Minister who is inside Cabinet and not connected with the corrections portfolio at that point at all.

Treaty of Waitangi Claims—Negotiation Milestones

4. DAVE HEREORA (Labour) to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: What significant milestone was reached as part of a recent Treaty negotiation?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Last Friday on behalf of the Crown I signed an agreement in principle with Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa to settle Te Rarawa’s historical Treaty claims. The settlement includes financial and commercial redress comprising quantum of $20 million, the opportunity to purchase 29 percent of Ōpōuri Forest, and other Crown properties, and commitment by the Crown to negotiate for the purchase of two Landcorp farms that Te Rarawa will have the opportunity to acquire over time. This milestone is particularly significant in that many New Zealanders will remember the hīkoi of 1975 led by the late Dame Whina Cooper, which brought wide public awareness of Māori grievances. This settlement was with her people at her marae, Waipuna.

Dave Hereora: Does the agreement in principle with Te Rarawa contain any significant initiatives?

Hon MARK BURTON: A key feature of the agreement in principle redress is a unique whenua ngahere package that provides for Te Rarawa’s increased involvement in the management of conservation land at all levels, reflecting Te Rarawa’s and the Crown’s joint commitment to conservation outcomes for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

Dr Pita Sharples: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, tēnā tātou katoa. Does the Minister agree that the recent decision to delay the controversial affiliate Te Arawa settlement is a significant milestone in the Treaty policy process, demonstrating that the Crown is finally owning up to the policy failure identified by the chief executive of the Federation of Māori Authorities as “The Government has been deceitful and acted in bad faith over the settlement.”; and if not, why not?

Hon MARK BURTON: No; I think it marks a milestone in the fact that despite a good-faith negotiation both parties have agreed to put aside for the time being the advancement of that legislative matter to enable and to support the efforts of other iwi in the area to engage and to consider the central North Island collectively.

Dave Hereora: Is this the first important Treaty settlement milestone reached this year?

Hon MARK BURTON: No, the signing of the agreement in principle with Te Rarawa follows the release in May of a draft agreement in principle to settle Waikato-Tainui’s claims to the Waikato River, the signing of terms of negotiation with Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa iwi later that month, and the signing of an agreement in principle with North Island Ngāti Apa in July.

Hone Harawira: Does the agreement in principle signed last Friday for the settlement of Te Rarawa’s historical Treaty claims provide Te Rarawa with the ability to control their mineral resources and access to the benefits for mineral exploitation—an opportunity that will be of great significance to their people and their communities; and if not, why not?

Hon MARK BURTON: The mineral resources were not within the scope of the agreement in principle.

Electoral Finance Bill—Regulated Period

5. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: What reasons, if any, does he have for proposing a regulated period of up to 11 months in the Electoral Finance Bill, apart from his statement in reply to my question last week that this period “is longer than the Canadian but briefer than the United Kingdom’s”?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): As I have already explained to the member, this strikes a balance between the shorter Canadian regulated period but lower relative-spending limit, and the United Kingdom’s longer period and higher relative-spending limit. This would position New Zealand’s electoral system credibly between the two comparable jurisdictions. Commencing the regulated period on 1 January when an election takes place in the third year of the parliamentary cycle will provide clarity and certainty, for all those intending to participate in the electoral process, about when the qualifying period for election expenditure begins.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister realise that the 3-month period, which New Zealand currently has, is longer than almost all other developed countries—for instance, Ireland has a 2-month period; Canada has a 6-week regulated period; and Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Australia have no regulated election period at all—so in that context, why did he pick the UK, which has by far the longest regulated election period in the world, except for Zimbabwe?

Hon MARK BURTON: As always, the member chooses to look at one aspect of a framework. As I indicated in my primary answer, by way of example, another factor to take into account—as we did in concluding that this was an appropriate regulated period—is the limitations on expenditure combined with the regulated period. Taking those matters into account, I say that this is a fair, reasonable, and realistic period.

R Doug Woolerton: Can the Minister envisage a way that a party could circumvent the proposed legislation and succeed in spending a $4 million budget in spite of having a $2.5 million cap for the 11-month regulatory period?

Hon MARK BURTON: I am sure that, even as we discuss this matter in the House today, there are members opposite busily, with their calculators, attempting to think of such loopholes. But I have to say to members that the experience of the 2005 general election is that it is simply not tolerable to leave the loopholes as big as they are, through which the National Party and its financial backers sought to rort the system.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that the incidents he refers to in the 2005 election, such as that of the pledge card, occurred within the 3-month election period, as did the Exclusive Brethren campaign; and, given that information, what evidence does he have of any activity outside of the 3-month period that he believes warrants New Zealand picking an 11-month regulated period—the longest in the developed world apart from that of the United Kingdom?

Hon MARK BURTON: The period from 1 January—which, of course, in the experience of New Zealand has not been an 11-month period; since the advent of MMP, it has varied, obviously, from close to 11 months to as little as 6 months, so the member again misleads Parliament in that regard—is part of a total package. On balance, the purpose of the package before the House is quite clearly and openly intended to ensure that New Zealand’s electoral system is based on a contest of ideas, not of bank balances.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister is trying to use up supplementary questions by simply not answering the direct question. My direct question asked what evidence of activity that had occurred outside the 3-month period warrants New Zealand having a regulated period of 11 months. I asked the Minister a direct question, which began “what evidence …”. It has nothing to do with the Government’s intention or the Minister’s own meanderings around the UK. The Minister, by not addressing the question at all, is forcing us to use up supplementary questions in order to get the answer to the question of what evidence there is.

Madam SPEAKER: As the member knows, one cannot require a specific or particular answer to a question. The Minister is just required to address the question.

Hon Bill English: What evidence is there to demonstrate that New Zealand needs a regulated election period of up to 11 months?

Hon MARK BURTON: I have sought leave previously to table one really good example, and that is a letter of 24 May 2005 that quite openly sets out an intention for a very extensive election campaign costing $1 million, with the sole goal of getting a particular party elected, and with the stated intention of getting around New Zealand’s electoral law. That example certainly took place before a 3-month regulated period, but, more important, there are other examples. I have to say to the member that this same process could run over a longer period of time. The intent of this legislation is to provide certainty and protection to the integrity of the New Zealand electoral system—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s a rort!

Hon MARK BURTON:—which is clearly needed after the rort, I say to Dr Smith, that was perpetrated by the National Party and its supporters in 2005.

Hon Bill English: Can I take it from the Minister’s answer that a letter or a document setting out an intention to campaign by any group of New Zealanders or individuals will now be caught by the legislation that he has proposed and will be counted as a political advertisement, and will therefore require the person writing the letter to meet all the statutory restrictions that he is imposing; and does he realise that it would be new policy if such a document were to constitute an election advertisement—and what other documents does the Government intend to catch if it catches that one?

Hon MARK BURTON: Of course not, and that is not what I said. The member asked for evidence of intent, and I gave him that. This letter is not a theoretical document; it is a letter that outlined an intent that was followed through with $1 million worth of material that had the sole intention of getting around the law of New Zealand to try to get the National Party into Government by undermining New Zealand’s electoral law.

Ron Mark: Is not the example that the Hon—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: The member is asking a question.

Ron Mark: Is not the example that the Hon Bill English is seeking from the Minister the most obvious example; that is, the red and blue billboard campaign run by the National Party using either parliamentary funds or private funds—and the public has a right to know whether they were parliamentary funds or private funds, and how they impacted on the election and why they were not included in the total overall costings?

Hon MARK BURTON: I think the member raises a good example of what most reasonable New Zealanders would regard as being electioneering in an election year. This Government is not embarrassed to suggest that it is reasonable that 1 January of an election year mark the beginning of an election year.

Hon Bill English: Is the Government embarrassed to realise that, under the law changes it is proposing, the National Party’s 2005 billboards would not be able to be privately funded, because they would be illegal, but would be able, under its law, to be publicly funded without any limit on the expenditure?

Hon MARK BURTON: I am not convinced of the accuracy of the member’s assertion.

Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table in the House a letter from Heather Simpson to all chiefs of staff outlining exactly that proposition, so that Mr Burton can know what is going on behind the scenes.

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

Hon Bill English: If the Government believes it is vital for a vibrant and small democracy such as New Zealand to have a regulated period for political opinion that amounts to one-third of the term of a Government, is Labour planning to change the Cabinet Manual to apply the same restraint to Government advertising from 1 January as now applies for the regulated period of 3 months?

Hon MARK BURTON: Although I do not have personal jurisdiction over the rewriting of the Cabinet Manual, I can say to the member that there are strict guidelines, for every day of the 3-year cycle, governing what Government and Government-agency funding can be used for in terms of the promotion or the advertising of Government activities.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister not aware that a combination of the Cabinet Manual and convention means that in the 3 months’ run-up to an election, all but the most necessary and basic Government advertising traditionally stops, and that the Government does not make any important appointments during that time; and why has he not considered that if everyone else will be subject to tight anti-democratic restrictions from 1 January, then the Government should be subject to exactly the same restrictions for exactly the same length of time?

Hon MARK BURTON: Again the member used an assertion that I absolutely disagree with; I do not think there is anything anti-democratic at all in the proposition. However, I repeat for the member that there is a 3-year requirement that only impartial, accurate, and factual information can be provided for informing the public. Government funding cannot be used at all to promote party political information.

Finance Companies—Securities Commission

6. MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce: Has the Minister received a response from the Securities Commission in relation to her request that they meet with trustee companies to find ways of improving the current regulatory environment for finance companies; if so, what was that response?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): On Thursday last week the Securities Commission provided me with proposals to ensure that all trust deeds provide trustees with robust powers to get the information they need to carry out their duties in the interests of investors. The proposed changes focus on requiring best-practice reporting by issuers to trustees, including monthly reports on liquidity, asset quality, reinvestment rates, and any breaches of financing arrangements with third parties; enabling the trustee to engage at the finance company’s expense an expert to report on the company’s true financial position; and, thirdly, empowering the trustee to appoint an additional auditor if it is not satisfied that the auditor appointed by the company has sufficient experience or capacity.

Maryan Street: Has the Government considered the Securities Commission’s proposals; if so, what steps does it propose to take in response?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes. Cabinet noted the Securities Commission’s proposals at its meeting yesterday, and it has decided to implement the recommended changes by facilitating the making of the regulations, which are currently being drafted. The amended requirements will automatically become part of every existing trust deed and every new trust deed, and will, therefore, apply to all finance companies operating in New Zealand. I am pleased the Securities Commission has acted so promptly within existing frameworks to promote best practice across the sector.

Simon Power: What assurances can the Minister give the House that the Securities Commission is aware of all finance company activity, as a report released late last week indicated that the Securities Commission had not known of the existence of Finance and Investments; and can we be assured that the commission is on its game as far as any other businesses operating below its radar may be concerned?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: An investigation is going on into that matter, and I will not comment on it in the meantime.

Timber—Sustainably Produced Imports

7. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does her Government agree with Labour’s 2002 election promise to “Work towards ensuring that only sustainably produced timber is imported into New Zealand”; if so, on what date will this goal be achieved?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. We are making good progress. A work programme under way at the moment will culminate in a full-scale review in February next year of the actions taken so far.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Prime Minister believe that the massive increase in imports of wooden furniture and furniture parts from $90 million worth to $236 million worth in just 2 years, much of it from unsustainable sources, is evidence that we are clearly moving further away from, rather than closer to, Labour’s 2002 election goal?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is difficult to know, as I think the member realises, just exactly where some of that timber is coming from, and the nature of the logging practices surrounding it. That is why a lot of work is going on at the moment, working with the private sector, in relation to things like the practicality of regulatory and voluntary supply-chain requirements for legality, and, from next month, a major programme around international strategy, working with other countries, to seek ways to prevent illegally sourced timber from coming into New Zealand.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Why does the Government’s sustainable procurement policy still allow the use of tropical timber, like kwela, for Government buildings, when Norway has recently banned the use of all tropical timber in Government projects, because it cannot be sure of whether it is sustainable and legal?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think the member’s question almost answers itself, in the sense that there is a difference between being illegal and being unsustainable. The difficulty is telling the difference between the two, which is why Norway has taken that action. At this stage we have not taken that action, because at the end of the day it is not, in our view, necessary to ban sustainable logging in other countries that wish to engage in it. It may be advantageous economically, from their perspective. Of course, from the perspective of Kyoto Protocol obligations, there is nothing wrong with sustainable logging.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Prime Minister credibly call on other countries to reduce emissions, when New Zealand’s emissions are growing at the fastest rate ever in our history, when we have a trebling in the amount of unsustainable timber being imported, and when over the last 3 years we have seen the clearing of 20 million trees—the first time we have seen a net loss of forestry in 50 years?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There are many different questions there; I will take one of those. There has been a sustained reduction in plantings in New Zealand since about 1993-94, and the high levels—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It went negative just 2 years ago.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: —oh, shut up, just for a moment—and the high levels—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just tell the truth.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: He does not want to hear.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether achievement of Labour’s 2002 goal has been stalled due to free-trade talks with China, bearing in mind that over $100 million worth of furniture was imported from China into New Zealand last year, and that the Government’s own reports show that between a quarter and a third of all Chinese wood exports are derived from illegally logged timber?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, not in the least! To believe that would be the same as to believe that pyjamas were 2 percent formaldehyde in content, which was shown to be a complete lie by the TV programme that put it out.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Was the Minister saying, in his last reply, that the Government’s own reports are a complete lie when they say that between a quarter and a third of all Chinese wood exports are derived from illegally logged timber—information we were relying on in good faith?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I was saying that the trade talks with China are not held up by any consideration of illegal logging of timber in China. What I was saying was a complete lie was the matter that the Green Party did pick up and run with, which was the extraordinary claim that imported pyjamas from China were 2 percent formaldehyde in content. That was about as realistic as Ms Kedgley attacking the dreaded dihydrogen oxide content, as she did once, famously, in the past.

Television New Zealand—Revenue

8. Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Broadcasting: Does he agree with yesterday’s statement by Rick Ellis, Chief Executive Officer of Television New Zealand Limited, that “TVNZ will not return to the revenue levels of recent years any time soon”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting): Like all free-to-air broadcasters, Television New Zealand is facing such changes as fragmentation of audience and changes in technology. As a result, it does face some revenue challenges going forward. To address those challenges, Television New Zealand has begun to move into digital, it has moved to lower its costs, it is looking for new ways to source revenue, and it has launched its plan to reach New Zealanders on every screen, as it calls it. The board assures me that it believes that the plan is sound.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: How does the Minister explain the fact that since he took over the broadcasting portfolio the operating revenue at Television New Zealand has plummeted from $492 million in 2003 to $375 million in 2007—which is a decrease of $117 million, or 24 percent—and why would he think that things will start to improve?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It would help if the member actually did follow trends in broadcasting. For example, if he looked at any market anywhere in the world, he would understand that all broadcasters are facing a shaving down of their audiences—a fragmentation of their audiences. Of course, if the audience is watching 17 channels rather than a traditional two, the broadcaster’s revenue is going to change. It would help if the member actually understood broadcasting.

Martin Gallagher: Along with other significant publicly owned broadcasters, such as the BBC, the RTÉ, and the ABC, etc., why is Television New Zealand having to change; and what are the core components of its strategy?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I will answer that excellently insightful question by saying that Television New Zealand, like all broadcasters, is moving from analogue to digital. That is happening all around the world. It is having to change because of the change in viewing habits; many people now watch their television on a computer or on some hand-held device. It is having to look at changes, therefore, in its advertising revenue, because of course its traditional source of revenues from ads is beginning to change. Those kinds of changes mean that Television New Zealand now has a plan called Inspiring New Zealanders on Every Screen, which means that in practice it is trying to put its programmes on every screen for New Zealanders to watch. Some of those things have already begun to happen. For example, Television New Zealand has launched TVNZ ondemand; completed agreements with Google, YouTube, and Fairfax, for the use of content;, invested $100 million on top of Government funding in local content; and will soon launch two new advertising-free channels, which will give New Zealanders a whole new era of watching.

Dr Pita Sharples: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Does the Minister support Television New Zealand’s commercially driven decision to shift the flagship Māori news programme, Te Karere; if so, how will he explain to the disappointed Māori viewers, who were not consulted on the time shift, that Television New Zealand’s charter obligations for a significant Māori voice are able to be met through relegating its key Māori programme to the hours of dawn, midnight, and mid-afternoon?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As the House knows, of course, any Minister of Broadcasting is not allowed to interfere with programming decisions—which I know many members would say is a problem, because they would like their own best programmes put on. But Television New Zealand advises me that moving Te Karere is part of an overall strategy that could see the substantial increase in Māori content on Television One nearly double, and on channels overall, nearly triple. One of the things I would point out is that although it is being put on at a different time on traditional channels, Television New Zealand will be showing it at 6.15 on Television 7.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Does the Minister who really does understand broadcasting realise that since he took over the portfolio, he has managed to slash the value of Television New Zealand from $381 million in 2003 to $194 million in 2007—that is, he has halved the value—and what is his explanation?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: One of the other people who will understand this will be Mr Maurice Williamson. At the end of the 1990s—[Interruption] I tell Dr Nick Smith that Television New Zealand was being prepared for sale by the National Government. As a result, it drove down its cost structure by running programmes like Mork and Mindy, which cost about $50 an episode to run, while it raised some advertising revenue. In other words, it was prepared for sale by having very low cost structure but high resale value. Mr Jonathan Coleman, who is a rocket scientist on these issues, of course, will understand this, but we do not run the thing that way because we are not selling it.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: When the Minister said in the House in November 2005 that Television New Zealand is going through a transition towards becoming a company that will be commercially strong, did he understand that over a period of 4 years his broadcasting policy would end up delivering the loss of 160 jobs, a revenue drop of over $100 million, and that he would have cut the value of the company by 50 percent; and is he confident he will be able to deliver the same sort of results in his new job at Massey University?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member knows that TVNZ has traded extremely well over the last 7 years or so. In fact, it has had very high levels of revenue, off the back of extraordinary levels of advertising, which I think we will claim full responsibility for, since the member wants to apportion blame. As the member knows, as I have already outlined, every public broadcaster now is going through a major transition from analogue to digital. That means major cost restructuring in organisations like this. As the board tells us, it has faith that the new plan will give the organisation a good, positive future.

E-lodgment Programme—Milestones

9. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister for Land Information: What milestones have been achieved relating to the 100 percent e-lodgment programme over the past 12 months?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information): New Zealand is the first country in the world to achieve a comprehensive electronic land transfer and survey system. This is economic transformation. It means the fees for people buying and selling homes are significantly less than they would have been under a paper-based system. There is a faster, more efficient service for businesses. It is truly world-leading infrastructure.

Steve Chadwick: Was this major project achieved within budget, and how does that compare with predictions of doom and gloom from some quarters?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I am very happy to confirm to the House that this very substantial information technology project was achieved well within budget. A senior member of this House claimed previously that the project had “all the hallmarks of being an Incis mark two.” Who was claiming that this project had the hallmarks of that earlier National Government disaster? It was the Hon Dr Smith. It was not Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith but the Hon Dr Nick Smith. He was wrong again—INCIS under National; progress under Labour. I seek leave to table the Dominion article that had Nick Smith quoting that it had “all the hallmarks of being an Incis mark two.”

Leave granted.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the statement from the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, saying exactly those problems—

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

Land Transport—Rules and Logbooks

10. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister for Transport Safety: Is he confident that the new land transport rules for work time and logbooks, due to take effect next month, are flexible enough to support New Zealand’s agricultural sector?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety): Yes. Overall, there was wide consultation on these rules. They continue existing agricultural exemptions for logbooks, and the ability for the Director of Land Transport to grant variations that allow for short-term work-time extensions to meet urgent agricultural requirements, when these are deemed to be safe.

David Bennett: Does the Minister understand that agricultural contractors need to make hay while the sun shines, and how can he expect contractors to stop work and comply with the compulsory work rates in the regulations?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: An issue has, apparently, evolved— I was told about it today—in regard particularly to the very large—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: A bit slow.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: Well, maybe. It has evolved in regard to the very large tractors, of 4½ tonnes or greater, that some of the larger contracting organisations use. These tractors, when operated by a contractor on a road or further than 50 kilometres from a farm, will be subject to logbooks under the new rules, whereas currently they are not. However, I am told that that does not affect the work-time programme or the requirement to comply with the rules covering driving-hours.

Hon Mark Gosche: What other industry feedback has the Minister received on the new work-time and logbook rules?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: The New Zealand Road Transport Forum, which represents the vast majority of the commercial road industry, including rural operators, has publicly stated that it welcomes the new provisions, and believes that they will make compliance easier and more practical for the industry while at the same time making trucking safer.

David Bennett: Does the Minister understand that agricultural contractors have to harvest a crop when it is ready, and how can he expect them to stop work in order to comply with the regulations, thereby putting crops in this country at risk of ruin?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I am sorry that the member did not seem to understand the importance of my answer to his first question. He actually missed the critical point, which is that contractors until now have had an exemption from logbook rules. Currently, they do not have that. We are looking at that issue. I have been advised that it was not specifically raised by the contractors or anyone else during the public consultation phase of the development of the rules. We are working to fix it. We will find a solution. Had the member raised the issue with me, instead of trying to grandstand, we could well have done it. I would like to—

Madam SPEAKER: Has the Minister finished?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I would like to make one more comment.

Madam SPEAKER: Very quickly.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Another Harry botch-up.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I would just like to tell Dr Nick Smith that this issue came about due to a legislative change. It was not picked up in the rules translation following that legislative change. The moment I heard about it I set about trying to fix it, and that was this morning.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister clarify the situation: is it correct that every vehicle owned by the owner or manager of a farm, and used within 50 kilometres of that farm for agricultural purposes related directly to the management of that farm, including a vehicle used on a road to transport farm products, farm implements, stock, or farm requisites of any kind within such a distance, is exempt from the driving-hours logbook legislation; if it is true, is that not fair and reasonable for the agricultural sector?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: Yes. The member has summed it up very neatly. It has always been the case that those vehicles, when driven by employees, are exempt from logbook rules.

David Bennett: Does the Minister have safety and quality concerns over agricultural contractors having to employ relief drivers, and drivers speeding to finish jobs within the regulations, and when will the Minister rewrite these regulations to reflect the practicalities of the contracting industry?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: First, for the third time I tell the member quite clearly that this minor and very small group of vehicles—it is a small group of vehicles—has been exempt until now. A change in legislation has unfortunately resulted in the rules—not regulations—having an unintended consequence. We will fix it.

Madam SPEAKER: I know we are out of our normal routine with question time, but members should reflect just occasionally on how they sound. If we could keep interjections relevant and rare.

David Bennett: I seek leave to table the land transport rule Work Time and Logbooks 2007, which do not grant any exemptions—

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

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I seek leave to table a statement from the Road Transport Forum praising the introduction of the new—

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

Monetary Policy Framework—Inquiry

11. R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Will he consider implementing changes to New Zealand’s monetary policy framework if such changes are recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s inquiry into the future monetary policy framework?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Any recommendations will be fully considered not just by me but by the whole Cabinet in conformity with Standing Order 253(1).

R Doug Woolerton: Can the Minister confirm that a large number of the submitters share New Zealand First’s view that we should move from our single focus on price stability and make the Governor of the Reserve Bank take the dollar, and export, and economic growth into consideration when adjusting interest rates; and would he consider making such changes if the select committee returns with such recommendations?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As far as I am aware, so far the hearings have been a bit like a tennis match—at deuce, with about seven advantages so far to one side or the other. Therefore, I think it is unwise to draw any conclusions about the outcome of this select committee inquiry until it is complete.

R Doug Woolerton: Is the Minister aware that support for changing our monetary policy has even come from those traditionally seen as Bill English’s mates, and does he find it odd that Mr English’s party continues to stonewall any attempts to change New Zealand’s monetary policy for the better? [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I agree. The Minister can address the question as it relates to ministerial responsibility but not to comments about other parties.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. What part of that question could possibly relate to ministerial responsibility? The member asked him about the views of Bill English’s mates. Now¸ the Minister just does not have the time to go through giving this House the views of Bill’s many, many mates.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you; I understand the member. Would the member like to rephrase his question to bring it within ministerial responsibility.

R Doug Woolerton: Madam Speaker, I take your suggestion and ask the Minister why he thinks that the National Party is continuing to stonewall any attempts to change New Zealand—

Madam SPEAKER: No, that is not acceptable.

H V Ross Robertson: Has the Minister seen any reports at all on how fiscal policy can be used to support monetary policy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen one report that simultaneously calls for larger surpluses to take heat out of the economy, and tax cuts to reduce the size of the surplus. Now, although I am used to Mr Key and Mr English contradicting each other, it is quite impressive for Mr English to contradict himself so glaringly in the one press statement.

Spectrum Care Trust—Standard of Care

12. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister for Disability Issues: Is she satisfied with the quality of care provided by Spectrum Care Trust to Guy Tuffin?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues): No. I agree with the spokesperson for the Ministry of Health, who has described his care as deplorable and abhorrent.

Dr Paul Hutchison: When did she first become aware of allegations regarding the abuse of Guy Tuffin, and what action did she take at that time to ensure he received adequate care?

Hon RUTH DYSON: As the member knows—because he has used that line of questioning many times in both written and oral questions—I do not have any ministerial portfolio for the operational matters within the Ministry of Health. Therefore, those questions should appropriately be directed to the Minister of Health. I am happy to answer any question for which I have a ministerial portfolio, but I have no responsibility for any operational issues within the Ministry of Health.

Russell Fairbrother: Why have successive Governments pursued deinstitutionalisation, and, in general, has the policy worked?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Deinstitutionalisation is about ensuring that disabled people can live in their own communities and do the day-to-day things that most of us take for granted, which is a key aim of the New Zealand Disability Strategy. As to whether it has worked, I have yet to meet any New Zealander who wants to be returned to live in an institution. They do not want to go back.

Dr Paul Hutchison: How could she possibly not accept any responsibility in her role as Minister for Disability Issues, where she is supposed to be an advocate for disabled people, when an intellectually disabled blind man was allegedly kicked and dragged across a rugby field by those employed to care for him in 2005; and why was the same man, a year later, subjected to cold showers and isolation, and forced to sleep on a faeces-covered mattress for 3 weeks?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The member actually knows the answers to his questions, because they have been the subject of an inquiry by the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner, which is the appropriate organisation to investigate those complaints and make recommendations—recommendations that the provider and the Ministry of Health are then obliged under the Health and Disability Commissioner’s legislation to implement.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to consider very carefully whether it is reasonable for a Minister to answer by saying: “The member knows the answer.” Surely there is a reason for questions being answered. It is found under Standing Order 371. Ministers should give an answer consistent with the public good—one would assume, the public interest. Therefore, perhaps the Minister should be invited to elaborate a little bit and give the House the answer that she believes Dr Hutchison may already have.

Madam SPEAKER: I think that is exactly what the Minister did, and, having said that, she then went on to address the question.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Is the quality of care provided to Guy Tuffin what people can expect under this Government, or is this just an isolated case?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I was delighted to read at the conclusion of David Fisher’s article on the gentleman to whom the member refers—and whom I actually prefer not to have publicly named, because he did not have a choice over Dr Hutchison putting his name out into the public—that his current living arrangements are more than satisfactory, to the point that he was described as happy and laughing. That is the level of support he is entitled to receive. It is not what he received from the previous provider, which I described in my answer to the primary question as abhorrent.

Dr Paul Hutchison: I seek leave to table a report by the deputy Health and Disability Commissioner, released on 9 September, that describes breaches of the consumer code of rights—

Leave granted.

Dr Paul Hutchison: I seek leave to table an article by David Fisher on 2 September from Herald on Sunday—

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

ENDS

© Scoop Media