Questions for Oral Answer - Tuesday, 16 October 2007

Questions to Ministers

Terrorism Suppression Act—Designations

1. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Prime Minister: What are the names of the United Nations designated groups listed in this country under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, and why have no local groups been listed as a designated terrorist entity?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister): Close to 500 groups or individuals are designated by the United Nations and consequently designated under the Terrorism Suppression Act. The names are all listed in the New Zealand Gazette and are also on the New Zealand Police website. No advice has been received that designation of any local group is justified at this time.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Has the Prime Minister read the 2005 report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change, which concluded: “The current war on terrorism has in some instances corroded the very values that terrorists target—human rights and the rule of law.”, and what rights do citizens have to claim compensation for broken windows, school closures, kōhanga reo closures, return trips from Rūātoki to Rotorua to retrieve whānau members who have been released without charge, and any other consequences of yesterday’s enforcement actions?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Members of the public who have grievances against the police can take those up with the Police Complaints Authority. The processes are well laid out in that regard.

Keith Locke: Does the Prime Minister agree that the environmental, peace, and Māori rights movements have a long history of peaceful protests and should not be, in any way, smeared by association with the alleged acts of violence by one or two individuals?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: New Zealand stands for the right to peaceful protest; many of us in this House have engaged in peaceful protest in the past. Indeed, the Terrorism Suppression Act itself is quite specific around that matter. In relation to more recent events—which I presume the member is referring to—we shall see what evidence the police have and what the courts make of that evidence. I am not going to rush to any form of judgment.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is very, very quiet at the present time. It was extremely difficult to hear Dr Cullen’s answer, and it was also difficult to hear the three questions that have been asked so far. I wonder whether the ear-sets might be turned up a little.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. It was very difficult to hear you, Mr Brownlee, at the beginning too, so there is obviously something wrong with the system. [Interruption] I did not mean that to sound the way it did, actually! Could someone please turn up the volume.

Ron Mark: Does the Prime Minister not agree that, given the events of yesterday, her Government’s decision to repeal the seditious offences currently on the statute book, through the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill, was a mistake, given specifically that the real intent of those laws is to protect lawful authority against violence?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: My understanding is that the reasons why the vast majority of members in the House have voted for the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill is that the kinds of circumstances that are legitimately covered by those offences are adequately covered under other legislation. Of course, the police sought search warrants under both arms legislation and the Terrorism Suppression Act.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is the Prime Minister concerned that young people and teenagers are currently being held in police cells and prisons for extended periods of time for questioning, due to warrants issued under the Terrorism Suppression Act, and can she absolutely guarantee to the House that they will have their rights upheld, be provided with the legal representation they need, and be kept physically safe while in police custody?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There is certainly a guarantee that the rights of citizens, whatever their age, will be upheld during these processes. I should point out to members who may not perhaps be fully cognisant of this fact, that the police have to seek warrants under all legislation under which they may lay charges.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Can the Prime Minister provide the estimated cost of this exercise to maintain the year-long surveillance, and what justification is there for such invasive action on the freedoms of people?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The second part of that question rushes to judgment. The police are acting on the basis of evidence that they believe is sound. Under certain circumstances, the Solicitor-General will need to be satisfied that evidence is sound if charges are laid under the Terrorism Suppression Act. In either case, the courts will make the decision. It is not for this House or any member to start deciding what the facts are.

Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House whether the police have actually invoked any provision of the Terrorism Suppression Act, and whether the people arrested will be treated any differently under that Act from the way they would be in the normal course of events?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In the latter case, no. The police, as I have indicated, have sought warrants under the Terrorism Suppression Act because in their view there is the possibility that charges may be laid under that Act. If they had not sought warrants for search in relation to that Act, they could not lay such charges.

Keith Locke: Does the Prime Minister agree that our very democracy has been established through a long process of peaceful protest, in which she herself has been involved on occasion, and that we need to be very careful that any action taken under the Terrorism Suppression Act, or criminal law, or any Government statement, does not undermine our important right to disagree with the State?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Those rights are fundamental to a democracy, and one of the problems that many democracies face around the world is balancing the exercise of those rights and protecting them properly in an age of international terrorism. I would have to say that I think it is going slightly far to say that our entire democracy has been created on the basis of peaceful protest. That would require a significant rewriting of New Zealand’s history.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Has the Prime Minister read the comments of Judge Rota, who noted “the uncertainty of the charges”, and, secondly, “scant information before the court” when individuals were brought before the Rotorua District Court yesterday, and what confidence can any member of the public have that this situation is not just a politically contrived exercise to demonstrate—

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, but the member obviously did not hear my ruling. He is now straying into matters that are sub judice. There are matters before the court. If the member would like to reconsider his question, to bring it within the Standing Orders, that is perfectly all right.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Has the Prime Minister read the comments of Judge Rota, who noted “the uncertainty of the charges” and “scant information before the court”—

Madam SPEAKER: I think that question is out of order.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the Speaker knows, I am still a new member of Parliament, despite having been here for 2 years. Can I have one more shot at that question, without that bit?

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, the member may, but the member must abide by the sub judice rule and the way it is applied in this House.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. From just listening to the question, and not in any way disputing your ruling, I think it might help the member if you gave him a little bit of guidance on where he might go with this. It seems to me that the application as we are hearing it today is somewhat narrow. That is your prerogative, but it would help the member, I think, to know the parameters and where he can take the question.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. Members cannot refer to matters that are already before the courts. The member was explicitly referring to those matters. But by all means he can have another go.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Would the Prime Minister be concerned about some of the allegations before the court in Rotorua, and what confidence can any member of the public have that this situation is not a politically contrived exercise to demonstrate the impact of the Terrorism Suppression Act?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think it is fair to say that the Prime Minister would be concerned at any allegations in relation either to arms offences or to the Terrorism Suppression Act. These matters have been dealt with by the police. The police have acted entirely independently. Senior Ministers were briefed after the Commissioner of Police had made up his mind about where he was going, in relation to these matters. The Government does not interfere, and indeed sometimes hearing some of the commentary on this matter, it seems to me that people are calling for the Government to interfere against the police.

State Sector—Wages and Salaries

2. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statements of last year that he will be taking “a very clear line on state sector wages and salaries” and that “State sector CEOs need to be aware we expect that dividend to emerge starting from this year, and that one of the implications of that will be careful management of labour costs.”; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Yes, and since those statements we have seen the growth rate in core public sector wages fall slightly below the rate of private sector wage growth.

Hon Bill English: What, then, does the Minister make of reports that the pay rates for policy analysts have gone up by 25 percent in about the last 18 months to a range of $80,000 to $150,000, contributing to a 21 percent growth in incomes in the Wellington region, twice the rate of the rest of the country?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I will deal with the issue of the 21 percent, and I will quote from a New Zealand income survey: “The 21 percent increase in income for the Wellington region is subject to a sampling error, and is not a very reliable statistic to use.” That quote is from the original official document. If the member thinks that that is strange, then perhaps he might care to go back just a couple of years to between 2003 and 2005. Over that entire 2-year period, according to the same survey, the average weekly income in the Wellington region rose 0.6 percent. If one believes that, one will believe anything.

Hon Mark Gosche: Has the Minister received any reports on the benefits of increased wages and salaries across the whole economy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The fact that we have seen increased wages and salaries across the whole economy has led one commentator to note that over the time this Labour-led Government has been in office people have become “much more secure than they were.” These comments came from Bill English, who went on to say that this economic security meant that there was no need for a radical change in course.

R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister believe that the Government should be holding down State sector salaries against the market, as Mr English seems to be suggesting?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. The State sector has to compete just as the private sector does and, of course, the areas where State sector wages and salaries have risen much more than the average have been primarily those of the health sector followed by the education sector. If, of course, we had not seen significant salary increases in the health sector, we would have lost a much higher proportion of doctors and nurses offshore, where salaries in health tend to rise towards the highest level.

Hon Bill English: When the Minister said that he will be taking “a very clear line on state sector wages and salaries”, did he think that chief executives would take that as permission to lift the range of salaries for policy analysts from $80,000 to $150,000, and for his own department, Treasury, to have one in three of its staff paid over $100,000?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Treasury is an organisation that has had an extremely limited increase in its funding over the last 6 years, or so. It is composed of extremely high-quality staff, and we have to pay for that. We are continuing to lose staff into the private sector where wage rates are higher. But I remind the member again that core public sector wage movements over the last 6 years have very, very closely matched private sector movements, and over the last year have actually been slightly below private sector movements.

Hon Bill English: Why should taxpayers earning $39,000 pay 33c in every extra dollar they earn to pay for Government policy that bans beer fridges and has civil servants ringing homes to pursue illegal babysitting?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am not aware of a single Treasury policy analyst who has been ringing homes and asking questions about babysitting.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister answer the question as to why people on $39,000 should be paying 33c in every extra dollar they earn, in order to fund a 25 percent increase in the salaries of policy analysts in Government departments when they clearly give bad advice?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member is now making up the numbers based on anecdotal data. I remind him again that core public sector wage movements have, in fact, been mirroring the private sector over the last 6 years—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, they haven’t.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: —oh, they have; those are the official statistics—and the only areas where public sector wage rates have increased much faster have been those for doctors, nurses, and teachers. And every time doctors and nurses threaten strike action, the Opposition health spokesperson calls upon us to settle immediately.

Hon Bill English: Why should someone on $39,000 pay 33c in every extra dollar they earn not just to pay for substantial increases in salaries but also to fund an expansion in the number of people employed in core Government departments from 30,700 back in 1999 to 42,200 in 2006?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Firstly, as the member well knows, some of that growth is due to reclassification. For example, the entire Group Special Education was taken from outside the core State sector to inside the core State sector. That was a movement, I think, of something like 1,800 staff in one fell swoop. Secondly, the growth in the core State sector has not been larger than the growth in total employment in the economy. That has not been the case, at all. Thirdly, the largest growth in the core State sector has been in the service delivery areas, including those of the police, the Department of Corrections, and the child welfare officers who are part of Child, Youth and Family. Those are areas in which the National Party keeps complaining there are not enough people employed by the State.

State-owned Enterprises—Performance

3. MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What reports has he received on the performance of State-owned enterprises?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: The Minister has seen a number of reports showing that State-owned enterprises have generated net profits of more than $500 million in the last financial year. Over $400 million of this has been paid in dividends, and over $100 million has been reinvested into New Zealand’s infrastructure.

Martin Gallagher: Has the Minister seen any reports purporting to suggest ways to improve the performance of State-owned enterprises?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Minister has seen three. One was from Mr Bill English, proposing that New Zealanders—by and large wealthy New Zealanders, of course—can buy shares in these assets, which currently all Kiwis own. That is what State-owned enterprises are. He has seen another report from Gerry Brownlee in the same publication, proposing to sell Landcorp but retain Transpower, but saying nothing about the other 15 State-owned enterprises. Clearly, the leader of the National Party does not agree with a slow-burn fire sale; he is saying: “Now, we’re listening to the public … we know they don’t want to … sell assets and we understand that,”.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister accept that, with the assets of all the State-owned enterprises being valued at some $20 billion, the dividend of $400 million represents a return of only 2 percent; if so, has he thought of taking the advice of the Hon Trevor Mallard, who suggested in March this year that some of the assets might well be sold, except, of course, for Kiwibank, in which he could invest some of the proceeds for a staggering 8 percent return on his money?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What the member seems to ignore is the substantial profits retained by State-owned enterprises for reinvestment in growth and development. Normally, the Opposition members are complaining about the level of profit gouging by the State-owned electricity generators—

Gerry Brownlee: Yes.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: He says: “Yes.” Having just asked that question, he now says that the State-owned electricity generators, which are the largest part of the actual State-owned enterprise portfolio, are taking too much profit out of the system.

Gerry Brownlee: That’s right.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: He says: “That’s right.” I rest my case. We do not need two National MPs for a contradiction; one will do.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: I remind members that points of order are heard in silence.

Gerry Brownlee: My point of order is probably a borderline point of order. The Minister has to answer the question, and the fundamental question, which he failed to answer, was why it was OK for Trevor Mallard to propose asset sales, but not anybody else.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister did address the questions. Also, as the member knows, when there are interjections they often occasion responses as part of the answer.

Energy Strategy—Electricity

4. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Energy: What does the annual increase in New Zealand’s demand for electrical energy need to be restricted to if New Zealand is to meet the Government’s 90 percent renewable source generation target by 2025, under the approach laid out in the New Zealand Energy Strategy?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): New Zealand does not need to restrict increases in demand. We can meet demand through our substantial renewable resources, which we know are affordable. Of course, New Zealand should invest in efficiency to moderate increases in demand where this is cheaper than new generation. New Zealand has a competitive advantage in renewables, and the Labour-led Government is going to seize that opportunity.

Gerry Brownlee: Why does the New Zealand Energy Strategy talk of a 1.3 percent annual demand growth for electrical energy when the historical demand has been over 2 percent; and further, having settled on the figure of 1.3 percent growth, why does it state that only 9 percent growth between 2006 and 2025, or 0.5 percent per annum, will be enough to get New Zealand to 90 percent sustainably generated electricity?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The estimates as to future demand are drawn mainly from the Electricity Commission’s work. The Electricity Commission, even before this strategy, did not think that New Zealand’s electricity demand was going to continue to grow at what has been 2 percent per annum. Of course, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy that Jeanette Fitzsimons has been instrumental in drafting will also help knock off the top of demand.

Gerry Brownlee: How does he expect the two energy strategy documents recently described as “Pollyanna-ish” to face up to the tough questions of actually generating enough electrical energy for New Zealand to become a world-class economy when the paper hardly considers economic growth, uses different figures for economic growth and demand growth in different places, and does not even mention GDP growth rates?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The underpinnings in terms of growth forecasts are those that are used by Treasury, so there is nothing new there. I return to the original point—New Zealand has abundant sources of affordable renewables that we ought to develop.

Maryan Street: Has the Minister received recent reports indicating growing support for renewables growth, as outlined in the Government’s Energy Strategy?

Hon DAVID PARKER: A member of this House has recently put out his own press release indicating his thoughts on energy policy. Members should listen carefully, it reads like this: “Simply directing SOEs not to use renewables will not be enough.” That is correct—telling State-owned enterprises not to use renewables would be a nonsense. That is why we are doing the opposite.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Who said that?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Dear old Gerry said that. He was trying hard, but tripped himself again.

Madam SPEAKER: The last part of the answer was unnecessary.

Gerry Brownlee: Why would we accept the confused figures in the New Zealand Energy Strategy, and that those confused figures mean that electricity generation can be 90 percent renewable by 2025, when, despite talking about it for years, the percentage of electricity generated from renewable resources under the Minister’s Government has declined considerably over the last 8 years?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The figures are not confused. This strategy is achievable and will be achieved.

Peter Brown: Noting the debate about the 90 percent target, is the Minister aware that in the port of Tillamook in Oregon, USA, electricity is being generated in relative abundance from a centralised methane digester system, which, basically, successfully produces electricity from cow manure—at a very reasonable cost, I might add—and is this not an idea worth considering, noting that it produces electricity and cuts down on carbon dioxide gases?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I am not aware of that particular proposal but I am aware of similar proposals. I am also aware that one of the announcements the Hon Jim Anderton made some few weeks ago was to look at producing energy on farms from the likes of methane produced from dairy-shed waste. It is a good idea.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister agree that reducing the demand for stationary energy by 30 petajoules a year by 2025, or 30 times the total consumption of Nelson each year, which would result from implementing the measures in the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy, would not only help achieve the goal of 90 percent renewal electricity but also limit the environmental impact from new renewables like hydro and wind, increase security of supply, and save all Kiwis money?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I absolutely agree with every point the member has made.

Gerry Brownlee: Can he confirm that should New Zealand reach the 90 percent renewable target by 2025, at that point our emissions from electricity generation would be only just below 1990 levels; if so, how does that fit with the Prime Minister’s claim that electricity generation can be carbon neutral by 2020?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The first point I would make in respect of the 90 percent target is that people seem to forget that New Zealand used to have 90 percent renewable electricity, and it seems a good ambition to get back there. The second point I would make is that the exact level of emissions in 2025 will really depend upon the rate at which New Zealand can retire its older thermal. It seems likely that by then, the level of emissions will be between 2 million and 3 million tonnes per annum, which is quite modest and able to be offset.

Gerry Brownlee: Why is assistance for the retrofit of rental properties available only to landlords who have tenants holding a community services card?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It is because those properties tend to be the worst properties, and that should be no surprise to the member. People who have lower incomes, generally pay the lowest rent and therefore get the lowest quality rental properties to live in; and those are generally the worst insulated.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I seek leave to table a document stating: “Simply directing SOEs not to use renewables will not be enough.”

Leave granted.

Peter Brown: I seek leave to table documents on the success that the port of Tillamook is having in producing electricity.

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

Surgery—Elective Procedures

5. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Has he received any reports detailing the level of elective surgical procedures performed in New Zealand?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes, I have. In the last financial year over 112,000 New Zealanders received elective surgery, which is the highest level since reliable reporting began, and an increase of nearly 7,000 procedures in 1 year. This is a conservative figure. It does not include angioplasty, for example, or some diagnostic procedures, or some day surgery, all of which are also on the increase.

Sue Moroney: Has the Minister received any reports that would lead him to believe that people are accessing health services earlier?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, an independent evaluation of the Primary Health Care Strategy, released approximately 3 weeks ago, showed a 24 percent increase in consultation rates for older New Zealanders, since general practitioner fees were reduced. It is very gratifying to see such an increase for our older folk, because they are—arguably—at greatest risk of having poor health. We know that if we can get people to visit their doctor earlier, their health outcomes are likely to be much better.

Judy Turner: How many elective surgical procedures were performed by the private sector for the public sector in the past year, and does he expect this number of increase; if so, why?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I do not have the figures at hand for the last year, but I can tell the member that the number of publicly funded, but privately provided, procedures, although it has increased significantly severalfold over the term of this Government, remains as a small proportion of the total publicly funded, publicly provided figures.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is it not the record of failure of this Government that despite spending $5 billion a year extra on health, fewer New Zealanders are getting elective surgery than at any other time on a per capita basis; that people are finding it even harder to get an appointment with a hospital specialist; and while we speak, record numbers of New Zealanders are languishing in our country’s emergency departments?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The New Zealand health system is not perfect, but it is also true that it is demonstrably and measurably better, year by year, under this Government. That member does nothing but try to tear the health system down. Let us look at elective procedures as an example of his technique. For 2 years he said that elective procedures were heading south—that they were getting worse. For 2 years he put out press statements to say that the figures were getting worse. He has now accepted that the figures in this area, as well as many others, are getting better. So he has changed his argument. He now wants to know what is happening per capita. Well, let us take a look at some of the per capita changes in the last year. In Auckland, one of the growth areas of New Zealand, the increase has been not 7 percent but 15 percent. In Counties Manukau, one of the fastest growing areas in New Zealand, the growth rate has been not 7 percent but 18 percent. That is what success looks like. I say to that member: stop tearing down our health system.

Energy Strategy—Electricity

6. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Conservation: Does he share the goal of the Director-General of Conservation that “conservation is part of the infrastructure of New Zealand’s future, particularly as the country meets the challenges of sustainability and climate change”; if so, is he satisfied his department is doing everything possible to assist the goal of New Zealand’s electricity being 90 percent renewable by 2025 as per the recently announced Government Energy Strategy?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation): Yes; and yes.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can anybody take this Government seriously over climate change and renewable energy when the Minister’s department has been sitting on the application by Bay of Plenty Electricity for a concession over just 0.7 of a hectare—or 1 percent—of the Kaituna reserve, for over 2 years and 3 months, when that hydro station would save 33,000 tonnes of carbon emissions each year and renewably power 10,000 households, and when that scheme still has to be subject to a full resource consent process even if his department grants the concession?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The project that the member refers to is a complex project. It lies right next to land that is under reserve status and, just as with regard to the Arnold River, by moving through it properly, by negotiation, and by getting outcomes that everyone is happy with, we end up with a successful project. I am hopeful that we can do that in Kaituna, as well.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What did the Minister mean when he told Parliament on 5 December last year that “a decision on the Kaituna project is very imminent.”, noting that 10 months have since passed and Bay of Plenty Electricity still does not have a decision?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I guess I am a sort of optimistic guy.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. How can the answer that he is an optimistic guy address the question of why the Minister told the House that a decision was very imminent at the beginning of December last year when 10 months later we do not have a decision? This process of questioning is about departmental accountability, and I think the Minister does need to be accountable for that sort of bureaucratic bungle by his department.

Madam SPEAKER: I do not know whether the Minister wishes to add anything further to his answer?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Perhaps my answer was a little flippant, but I hope that in my first answer I touched on the fact that this is actually a much more complicated case than it first appeared to be. Because of the proximity of land under reserve status, we are trying to accommodate the proposal and the reserve-status land. I can operate only within the law.

Jill Pettis: How is the Department of Conservation contributing to a sustainable future for New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The conservation estate already makes a major contribution to New Zealand’s economic, environmental, and social infrastructure. Our natural environment underpins Brand New Zealand, driving our $18.6 billion tourism industry. Natural ecosystems provide the essential services that sustain life—for example, the tussock lands of Te Papanui Conservation Park. Conservation parks supply water for hydro generation, irrigation for farming, and drinking water for Dunedin. I see a member over there who thinks that it is funny; it is not funny to the people of Dunedin. If National wants to campaign on destroying the conservation estate, I say “Bring it on!”, because our Government is committed to protecting New Zealand’s unique landscapes and biodiversity.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What did the Minister mean when he told Parliament on 5 December last year: “I can say that some good news is very close on that project.”, when 10 months later the only news we have is a departmental report recommending that the concession application be rejected?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I have already explained to the House that this is a complex issue. The member who has just asked the question is all over the place on the issue of the environment. On the one hand he promises a rating system to protect New Zealand’s significant river systems—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister wants to divert off the subject by talking about some other quote I said. The question is about him telling the House last December that there was good news on this project. I asked him what the good news is, when the only development has been the department producing a report that says it should be declined.

Madam SPEAKER: I would ask the Minister to address the question and not to include material that is not relevant to the question.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I was trying to point out that from that particular member we get all sorts of contradictions. I guess it proves the Cullen maxim that one does not need two National MPs for a contradiction; one will do.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please address the question.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: As I have explained to the House already, this project, which at first seemed to be a rather simple one, is actually a very complex one because of the nature of the land tenure in that area. We are trying to resolve those issues.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How does the Minister justify his department taking 2 years and 3 months for a concession application involving just 0.7 hectares—or 1 percent—of one of the 8,400 reserves that are managed by his department, noting he has said publicly that addressing climate change is an urgent priority of his department?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Very easily. That member, as a former Minister of Conservation, knows that the Minister must operate within the law. I cannot arbitrarily say conservation land that has reserve status can be destroyed—it is not possible.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is it not the truth of this issue that his bloated bureaucracy is out of control, that even small concessions take years and years to conclude, and that on top of that years and years are required for resource consent; and is that not why New Zealand’s proportion of renewable energy has declined in every year of this Labour Government and why this Government does not have a bolter’s hope of meeting the target of 90 percent renewables by 2025?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The ludicrous and exaggerated comments of the member destroy any credibility he has. I remind the member again that as a former Minister of Conservation he knows that the Minister must operate within the law.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the statement by the Minister in December last year that the decision was “very imminent”.

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the Department of Conservation’s report recommending that this concession not be granted.

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

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I seek the leave of the House to table a document on the value of conservation to the New Zealand economy.

Leave granted.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I seek leave to table a statement from Fish and Game New Zealand praising the Government’s Energy Strategy.

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

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I seek the leave of the House to table a document outlining the major climate change initiatives that are being developed on conservation land.

Leave granted.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the Department of Conservation’s statement of intent, which states—

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

New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill—Law Commission Opinion

7. GORDON COPELAND (Independent) to the Attorney-General: Does he stand by his statement to the House of 12 September 2007: “My understanding is that the Law Commission, which is headed by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, has taken the view that before any such change should occur, there would need to be a great deal of work on what the legal implications of it might be.”, in relation to my New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill; if so, how did he reach that understanding?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Attorney-General): Yes; because that is what Sir Geoffrey communicated to me.

Gordon Copeland: Is he nevertheless now prepared to accept that in line with the evidence sent to the select committee, it is in fact also the view of the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer, President of the Law Commission, that private property rights should be included in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am aware that indeed Sir Geoffrey made a speech on 10 February 2006 in which he stated that fact. However, both he and Professor Burrows of the Law Commission believe that before any such step could be taken, a comprehensive study of New Zealand statute law and common law is necessary to work out the policy and fiscal implications of any such change. No such study has been done, and it would be irresponsible to make such a change until one was done.

Gordon Copeland: Does the Attorney-General concede that the taking of a person’s property by central or local government without compensation is theft; if so, is the Government prepared to outlaw such actions for all time by giving property rights the protection of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The ability to take property is covered by a range of other legislation, which also includes the right to compensation. The member’s bill, of course, also refers to the use and enjoyment of a person’s property. Given, first of all, a lack of definition of property, which has a very wide meaning in the law, and the language of use and enjoyment, which is extremely wide indeed, one could be asking for compensation for everything. As Attorney-General, I believe we have enough litigation already without inviting a vast increase in the amount that we have.

Gordon Copeland: If this great deal of work, which was suggested by Sir Geoffrey Palmer of the Law Commission and which the Attorney-General referred to earlier, were to be done, is his Government prepared to commit so that all New Zealanders, including those of modest means who do not have the resources to defend their rights through the courts, can be assured of having their private property rights protected through the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If such a large exercise were engaged in, then, depending on the results, obviously the Government would consider the results of that exercise.

Electoral Finance Bill—Freedom of Expression

8. CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Minister of Justice: Why does he disagree with the Human Rights Commission’s statement regarding the Electoral Finance Bill: “the inroads on freedom of expression which will result from the Bill are disproportionate and, in the Commission’s opinion, do not amount to a reasonable justification under s.5 of the BoRA.”?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Because I am persuaded by relevant case law, by contrary legal advice, and by the clear and real danger that unlimited freedom of expression ultimately benefits the very few wealthy, to the detriment of the many.

Christopher Finlayson: Can the Minister, given his frequent reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Harper v Canada, tell the House where in that judgment the Supreme Court of Canada says that a regulated period of 1 year, or one-third of the electoral cycle, is a justifiable limit on freedom of expression?

Hon MARK BURTON: The court in Harper v Canada says clearly that limits on third parties allow all citizens to have meaningful participation in the electoral process, and are therefore beneficial. But the danger with unlimited freedom of expression is that it ultimately benefits the very wealthy.

David Benson-Pope: Has the Minister seen any other statements on the bill’s impact on freedom of speech?

Hon MARK BURTON: Yes. I have seen the comment of another submitter on the bill: “The bill is designed to control only those who have many tens of thousands of dollars to spend promoting their preferred party or candidates. This is fundamentally different to freedom of speech. It is more like the freedom to speak louder than or even drown out ordinary people.”

R Doug Woolerton: Is the Minister’s view based on the fact that there will not be any erosion of freedom of speech in the proposed bill, but parties’ expenditure will be required to comply with the law?

Hon MARK BURTON: Precisely.

Christopher Finlayson: Can the Minister confirm that Harper v Canada is a decision that states that a 6-week regulated period is a justifiable limit on freedom of expression, as opposed to the 1-year regulated period in the Electoral Finance Bill, so his reliance on the decision in answering questions both today and last week was misplaced; if not, why not?

Hon MARK BURTON: I cannot confirm that, but I can confirm that, of course, the decision relates to the jurisdiction from which it comes. It does not, however, state what the member seeks to give the impression of, and that is that it would disagree with a longer period. It simply does not specifically refer to it. Harper v Canada relies on the principle that is clearly articulated in the judgment.

Christopher Finlayson: Can he tell the House where in Harper v Canada the Supreme Court of Canada says that being able to publish a handful of newspaper advertisements over the course of 11 months is a justifiable limit on freedom of expression; if not, why not?

Hon MARK BURTON: With respect, I think the member now simply seeks to trivialise Harper v Canada. What the court clearly does is lay down the principle, and it is the principle that matters in this judgment. I say again: it says clearly that limits on third parties allow all citizens to have meaningful participation. That is the fundamental purpose of the ruling.

Christopher Finlayson: Can he confirm that all that Harper v Canada says is that some limits on third-party spending are beneficial, and that the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada would probably be aghast to hear that the Minister is peddling their judgment as some kind of justification for electoral finance reform that includes the most draconian provisions in the world, with the possible exception of North Korea?

Hon MARK BURTON: I cannot agree with the complexion the member paints, because, of course, the Supreme Court of Canada gave its ruling in the context of Canadian electoral law. As the member knows, caps on electoral spending and limits on advertising are a fundamental part of that jurisdiction’s electoral law.

Electricity—Supply

9. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Energy: Is he confident that there will be sufficient renewable energy to meet New Zealand’s demand for electricity over the next 10 years?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): Yes. We know our renewables are affordable. The Energy Strategy confirms the Government’s view that all new generation should be renewable except to the extent necessary to ensure security of supply. We already have 633 megawatts of geothermal electricity announced, consented, or in process. Geothermal energy provides great baseload electricity. To put that in context, demand grows by about 150 megawatts a year. Contact Energy today has announced 650 megawatts of wind power in the North Island and a 100-megawatt gas peaking plant. If we add up the number of renewable projects that have been announced or are in the consenting process, we see that it comes to a staggering 3,311 megawatts. That is more than enough for 10 years. New Zealand does have a competitive advantage in renewables, and we will seize that opportunity.

Charles Chauvel: Can the Minister tell the House what measures the Government is taking to support its target of 90 percent renewable electricity generation?

Hon DAVID PARKER: To aid the transition to more renewables, we have sent a message to State-owned enterprises that we do not want more baseload thermal, and, also to that effect, we are considering an amendment to the Electricity Act. Together with this, we have a national policy statement coming on renewables under the Resource Management Act, and we have said we are going to use the call-in powers under the Act. Through this we will achieve our target of 90 percent renewables by 2025. I repeat, I have no doubt that with good Government leadership here, we will achieve this, and New Zealand will take advantage of what is our natural endowment.

Gerry Brownlee: Why, in justifying the Government’s moratorium on new thermal generation, did the Minister tell the New Zealand Herald that “It’s a fiction that building more thermal power stations reduces your long-term emissions,”, when only 2 months ago he defended the construction of Genesis Energy’s new thermal E3P plant by saying: “In fact, E3P is likely to back off Huntly and reduce and lower emissions.”; why would that not be the case for the proposals in Rodney that Genesis had, and would that not have meant that Huntly would have backed off even further, meaning our emissions from electrical generation would have been further lowered?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have never, ever said that building more thermal reduces one’s total emissions long term; it does not. New—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You did say that!

Hon DAVID PARKER: I did not, Dr Smith. I was very careful about what I said. What it does do is, year on year, decrease our emissions, because of course in the short term we replace coal with gas. But if we build more thermal, it lasts for decades. It actually results in higher emissions than if we build renewables instead—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You’ve changed your tune.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No I have not, Dr Smith.

Peter Brown: With the advent of a “cap and trade” emissions system, and in order to encourage renewable energy, is it possible that customers of Genesis Energy in the future will pay more for their power, simply because Genesis Energy generates a significant percentage of its power from coal and gas?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, it is not, because the market works to dispatch all energy at the same price. The market price is set by the marginal cost of electricity generation; so Genesis Energy customers, or, indeed, customers of any company, will not be disadvantaged in particular.

Gerry Brownlee: Why did the Minister ignore the advice of the Ministry for Economic Development’s energy division, which said in the analysis document that accompanied the New Zealand Energy Strategy that prolonged deferment or prohibition on the development of thermal energy plants could see existing, very, very dirty plants have a prolonged life with refits that otherwise would not have happened, thus failing to mitigate the very heavy emission we have from the electricity sector?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Ministry and the member do make a valid point. That is one of the issues we have to take into account—whether if we have a ban on more baseload thermal, our old thermal runs longer. There is an argument that it does, but that argument is outweighed by the reality that in the case of New Zealand, we have abundant sources of renewables that are available at an affordable price that will reduce emissions more by replacing them with renewables, rather than with more efficient thermal.

Work and Income—Fraud

10. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How many identities did Wayne Patterson use to fraudulently obtain benefits from Work and Income and what was the total value obtained broken down by type of benefit received?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment): I am advised that Wayne Thomas Patterson used 123 unique, unlinked, and totally internally consistent identities to defraud the Ministry of $3.4 million. He stole $608,347.25 in unemployment benefits, and $2,808,395.66 in New Zealand superannuation. As the judge in the case said, Mr Patterson was involved in what amounted to “a full time occupation of serious dishonesty. It is very far removed from what is commonly called benefit fraud.”

Judith Collins: Can the Minister confirm that a bank officer, not Work and Income staff, detected Wayne Patterson’s benefit fraud; and that if the bank officer had not picked up this suspicious activity there is every chance that Wayne Patterson would still be getting away with these crimes?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: My information is that, yes, that was the case. The bank officer did that because Mr Patterson made a mistake. But I want to point out, as the judge did, that this is an extraordinary case of a person who put his heart, mind, and intelligence into 123 different identities to defraud the State.

Lesley Soper: What steps has the Government taken to recover the money and ensure that cases like this one do not happen again in the future?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Mr Patterson’s assets have been seized, and I am advised that the Ministry of Social Development expects to recover over $4 million—$3.4 million was defrauded, but over $4 million will come back. I want to stress that there is a zero tolerance to benefit fraud. The ministry has implemented a new system of daily checks against the birth register, strengthened the photographic identification requirements, and established an intelligence unit to deal specifically with fraud cases. Departments are working together to identify issues of identity fraud. However, even the most robust system will be vulnerable to the most determined fraudster. But as Mr Patterson’s case shows, even the most able fraudster eventually gets caught.

Judith Collins: Why did the ministry not consult the Serious Fraud Office when it realised it was dealing with a fraud of well over $1 million; and why were the police not involved to the usual extent in a fraud of such magnitude, despite a previous assurance from the ministry that it was policy to refer any significant fraud investigations to either the police or the Serious Fraud Office—why did the ministry keep it in-house?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: One thing I would point out, in relation to the end of the question, is the highly successful conclusion of this investigation that resulted in the State getting back in excess of $4 million when it had lost $3.4 million, which says that the way this was handled was obviously very effective. The operation included senior staff from the Ministry of Social Development, its investigators, the New Zealand Police, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Crown Law Office, Crown-warranted criminal prosecutors, and forensic accountants, and was done in liaison with the Inland Revenue Department. The member is right. The Serious Fraud Office was not involved in this investigation but, as I said before, the investigation was highly successful.

Judith Collins: Is it not the case that after the ministry gave away $3.4 million, it then got lucky—the bank found the fraud, the gold price went up, the currency rate went up, Apple computer shares went up, and the fraudster wrote incriminating letters from prison and then pleaded guilty—and surely the Director of the Serious Fraud Office was correct when he wrote: “The role adopted by the ministry as the investigator, the prosecutor, and the political adviser of this significant fraud, in which it was also the victim, raises perception issues that would have been avoided had the police or the Serious Fraud Office been responsible for the investigation and prosecution.”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No one gave any money away. This person, as the judge said, was a unique fraudster and outstanding in his own field—literally, because no one else has ever done this. There were 123 unique, unlinked, absolutely different identities used by this person, so no one gave money away; this person stole it. Of course I want to point out, as I said before, that the investigation was successful, to the extent that over $4 million will be returned.

Judith Collins: Does the Minister believe that if the powers of the Serious Fraud Office had been used rather than ignored by his ministry, his chief executive would not have written to the sentencing judge: “I acknowledge that Mr Patterson has now agreed to allow the proceeds of crime orders to proceed and I appreciate his cooperation in this.”; and why are we relying on the good graces of a criminal rather than using the laws that have been designed for this very situation?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The answer is no. I just repeat that the success of this investigation is that we are sitting here today, as taxpayers of New Zealand, looking at a uniquely outstandingly different form of fraud that has now been defeated. The person has been prosecuted, and in excess of $4 million will come back.

Judith Collins: I seek leave to table a report that the Ministry of Social Development refused in 2005—

Leave granted.

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is no way that the House would know the contents of that report, or even what it is about.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I have put the question. Leave was given. I have ruled on this matter.

Judith Collins: I seek leave to table the report of the general manager of Benefit Integrity Services that recommends—

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

Terrorism Suppression Act—Police Actions

11. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Police: Does she believe that the use of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 by the Police is justified and appropriate; if so, why?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police): It is not for the Minister of Police to decide when, if, or whom it is appropriate for the police to prosecute, or what Act they will use for that prosecution.

Keith Locke: Does she agree with the former Minister of Justice Phil Goff back in 2003 when he said: “Terrorism should be dealt with under general criminal law wherever possible because terrorist acts are usually criminal offences committed with an ideological, political, or religious motive.”, and is she confident that where a terrorist offence has been invoked to date, there was not a criminal offence that could have stood in its place?

Hon ANNETTE KING: In respect of the first part of the member’s question, yes. In respect of the second part, I have no comment to make.

Employment Relations Authority—Confidence

12. KATE WILKINSON (National) to the Minister of Labour: Does she have confidence in the Employment Relations Authority; if so, why?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour): Yes, I do. The Employment Relations Authority receives over 2,000 applications a year, one-third of which are determined by the authority. Very few cases from the authority progress to the Employment Court.

Kate Wilkinson: Why should employers have confidence in the Employment Relations Authority when the authority is willing to order the payment of more than $8,000 to a restaurant manager who was fired after he failed to turn up to work, turned up drunk on another occasion and had to be sent home, on another occasion verbally abused staff and caused the business to lose custom, and lied on his CV?

Hon RUTH DYSON: As the member should be aware, given her previous profession, it is not my role to comment on the determinations of an independent judiciary body.

Kate Wilkinson: Does she think that employment law should protect abusive, truant, and drunk employees from being dismissed, and punish employers who try to dismiss them?

Hon RUTH DYSON: As the member should know from her previous profession, it is not appropriate for me, as Minister, to comment on individual determinations of the authority.

Darien Fenton: Has the Minister seen any figures on how many employment relationship problems have been solved in mediation, thus negating the need to escalate them to the Employment Relations Authority?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Actually, I have: 9,000 applications are made to access the department’s mediation services every year, and, of those, about 80 percent end in a settlement.

Peter Brown: In a general sense, is it not true that when the disputes resolution system under the Employment Relations Authority came into being it acted more speedily, with fewer financial resources, and less hassle and stress on the individuals involved than the system that operated under the Employment Contracts Act; if it was true then, is it still the case now?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The answer to that question is, in the main, yes. It certainly was true at the beginning. There have been some delays in determinations being issued, as the member who asked the primary question has ascertained through her questions. That situation has certainly been resolved, as I have been advised.

Kate Wilkinson: Will she admit that it is procedurally difficult to dismiss an underperforming employee, given that in this case there was an agreed trial period, there was monitoring and mentoring for 2 months, and there were at least 12 different performance incidents, yet the employer still lost; if not, why not?

Hon RUTH DYSON: No. As the two research proposals that have been made public have indicated, this is not borne out by the facts.

Kate Wilkinson: Why, in light of these types of decisions, should employers bother to gamble by going before the Employment Relations Authority, when they could settle for an average of $5,000, to give them some certainty?

Hon RUTH DYSON: It is actually up to the employer which avenue he or she wishes to pursue to settle any grievance. The research has shown that access to our mediation services and formal dispute resolution processes is not expensive, and that they have very satisfactory outcomes for parties.

Questions to Members

Electoral Finance Bill—Select Committee Consideration

1. CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: How long did the Justice and Electoral Committee spend considering the Electoral Finance Bill on Thursday, 11 October?

LYNNE PILLAY (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): Members of the committee who were at the meeting, including the member, are aware, or should be aware, that the time spent on consideration was consistent with the posted schedule.

Christopher Finlayson: Given that the committee spent only 15 minutes on the Electoral Finance Bill last week, will the committee be rehearing some submitters who wanted to make an oral submission, such as Federated Farmers and the Hospitality Association, so that those organisations get a fair and full hearing, instead of being berated by the chair for being late, even though they were told the wrong time for presenting their oral evidence?

LYNNE PILLAY: That member continues to be very, very silly in this House. The member should be aware that the bill is set down for 4 hours’ consideration at the next meeting. Over 22½ committee hours have been spent on this bill so far, and the work is ongoing.

ENDS

© Scoop Media