Questions and Answers - 22 April 2010

(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

THURSDAY, 22 APRIL 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—Government Support

1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: On what date did Cabinet decide to support the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and what did Cabinet believe the impact of such a decision would be?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): Cabinet made the decision to support the declaration on 22 March. The statements made to this House and to the UN accurately reflect Cabinet’s view that this is a non-binding, aspirational document. The Government has affirmed that New Zealand’s existing legal and constitutional frameworks will define the bounds of the influence of the declaration.

Hon Annette King: If Cabinet agreed to ratify the UN declaration on 22 March, was it open and transparent of him to tell media in Canada on 14 April, when asked whether New Zealand would sign the declaration: “I think you’re a little bit ahead of yourself. From the New Zealand perspective, it’s true we’ve been looking and working on ways that we might adopt the declaration, but we haven’t made an announcement, and at least or until we do, wouldn’t necessarily count your chickens.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I make two points—[Interruption]. Yeah—a funky question. The Government has been quite open about the fact that it has been considering affirming the declaration. In fact, the Prime Minister has been talking about it since April 2009, and he correctly said no announcement had been made.

Hon Annette King: If the declaration, which New Zealand has now ratified, is symbolic and will not result in a lot of change, as he has claimed, was Sir Eddie Durie, who is a former Waitangi Tribunal chairman and High Court judge and a man considered to be a high-powered legal expert, wrong when he stated yesterday that it had important implications for the Office of Treaty Settlements, the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, and the Waitangi Tribunal, and that “Important statements of principle established through international negotiation … filter into the law in time”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Eddie Durie is known for the vein of his opinions on these matters.

Hon Annette King: Vagaries?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, the general direction of his opinion is always pretty predictable. What he said today on the radio was “… it is not legally binding, it’s not going to tie us up”, and he is absolutely correct about that.

Chris Tremain: Has the Prime Minister seen any contradictory reports on the declaration?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I have. The Hon Phil Goff has said “This is a declaration that says you have to restore all land that was once owned by indigenous people.” The Hon Trevor Mallard said on the same day “there is nothing in it at all for Maori.” But, of course, what really matters is what the Hon David Cunliffe thinks, and we have not heard from him yet.

Hon Annette King: If the ratification of the declaration is aspirational and symbolic, as the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated, why, 2 days later, has the first claim to the UN under article 32 of the declaration been lodged by the hapū from the Ngāpuhi tribe, seeking the return of 2,490 acres of land known as the Treaty grounds at the Bay of Islands, and does he agree with the tribal leader who says that if the land is not returned, the New Zealand Government will be exposed in front of the international community and lose credibility?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Labour Party thinks so much of Mr David Rankin, who lodged that claim, that it would not go near Waitangi for years.

Mr SPEAKER: The member asked a question, and the answer has nothing to do with the Labour Party.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, it does.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister should answer the question before he makes any comment about the Labour Party, if at all.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Part of the answer to the question—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to draw your attention to something. I know you were looking in the direction of the Government as you were speaking to it, but as you were directing the Deputy Prime Minister and saying that matter had nothing to do with the Labour Party, he said “Yes, it does.” If we did that, we would be ordered out of here.

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member that I did not particularly note that, but I remind members that when I am on my feet, members will not comment, interject, or say anything.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The so-called claim by Mr David Rankin, who I think is well known to all of us, cannot be a claim. It is completely irrelevant, and I would advise him not to waste the price of a postage stamp on it.

Hon Annette King: Does he concur with the Attorney-General, who said today that Māori who make claims about the impact of the ratification of the declaration are “fantasists and bush lawyers”, and are Eddie Durie, a former High Court judge, Tūhoe leader Tāmati Kruger, and former Māori Language Commission commissioner Haami Piripi to be counted in this group?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If they believed that making a claim under the declaration was some kind of useful exercise, then the Attorney-General is absolutely correct. I say to claimants that it is a total waste of time to imagine that they can make some kind of claim under this declaration. The Government has a framework in place for dealing with Treaty of Waitangi claims, and we are dealing with them much more successfully than the previous Labour Government ever did.

Hon Annette King: Who met the expenses of Te Ururoa Flavell, a backbench member of the Māori Party, to be at the ratification of the declaration in New York on Tuesday?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is quite entitled to ask detailed questions about those expenses. As I understand it, they were met by the Māori Party.

Budget 2010—Value for Taxpayers and Public Services

2. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Finance: How will the Budget next month ensure Government spending delivers value for taxpayers and better public services for New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Budget next month will continue to undo the damage done by the previous Government to public finances, when it squandered the benefits of a growing economy on ineffective services and a bloated Public Service. We plan to redirect another $1.8 billion of lower-quality Government spending between now and 2014 into higher-priority initiatives and better front-line services. We are taking a significant sum of money from existing unnecessary and ineffective services so we can have better health-care and better education, and keep New Zealanders safe.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: How will the Government ensure that it continues to manage its finances in a responsible way on behalf of taxpayers?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government signalled last year that there would be a $1.1 billion new operating allowance for Budget 2010. I am pleased to say that the Government services have come to the task with some readiness, and we will be able to announce a Budget that lives within the $1.1 billion annual operating surplus. This will help us return to Budget surpluses as quickly as possible.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does his definition of low-quality spending include thousands of elderly in his own electorate who cannot get home help? Does it include dying patients in the Manawatū losing intensive rehabilitation services? Does it include $2 million cut from mental health services in Nelson? Does it include front-line biosecurity jobs, or police cars to get cops to crime? Or does he mean tax cuts for his rich mates, and housing allowances for politicians?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is the kind of exaggeration and false outrage that propelled Government spending under Labour to record high levels of funding for record low levels of service. I might say to that member that his party leader yesterday used an example of an individual in this House that completely misrepresented the facts. That party should be careful before it exploits older people whose situation is not how it was described in this House.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What implications does his responsible approach have for Government agencies?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Most Government agencies will receive no Budget increases over the next 3 or 4 years, as the Government moves to get back into surplus as soon as possible. This will remain the case in this Budget. We have been surprised at just how much low-value spending the last Government put in place, because it has enabled Government agencies now for 2 years in a row to reprioritise billions of dollars over the next 3 or 4 years.

Stuart Nash: How will slashing $1.8 billion of Government spending, and cutting taxes for the 8 percent of Kiwis on the top tax rate, while delivering little if anything for the 75 percent of Kiwis earning below the average wage, deliver growth-enhancing change for every New Zealander?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That illustrates neatly the reasons why the electorate threw out the Labour Government, because its members cannot tell the difference between wasting—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In response to my colleague’s question about National policy, the Minister has once again attempted to portray the question as being about Labour policy. In response to my earlier question about policy decisions made in this term of this Government, he again referred all in his answer to Labour. He will either address the question on the basis of a grown-up approach to his own responsibilities—

Mr SPEAKER: The member was on reasonable ground until that point. But his objection to the answer, I think, was reasonably well founded. I say to the Minister that the question asked by Stuart Nash was a fair question—[Interruption] I warn the Minister of Finance that he may differ in view but while I am on my feet he is not to question me. As far as I am concerned, it was a fair question and does not deserve an answer that seeks to ridicule the Labour Party. The question deserves an answer and, as we all know in this place, some political shots are perfectly normal and acceptable, but to start an answer with saying that the question demonstrates that the member’s party does not understand something, is not a reasonable way to start answering a question. It was a reasonable question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That raises the question as to how someone who is a Minister is supposed to answer a question that is as hypothetically proposed as the member’s question was. It is not the policy of this Government, as he is claiming, because those announcements, if they are to be made, have not been made—

Mr SPEAKER: I have heard sufficient. The Hon Gerry Brownlee has given a very good answer: all a Minister needs to do is to say that decisions have not been made, and therefore it is a hypothetical situation.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The decisions have not been made, and that is a hypothetical situation. But I can tell the member that this Government does not believe what the previous Labour

Government believed, which was that if a dollar was spent, that was the point. We actually want to provide effective services for people, not just crank up Government spending at the expense of taxpayers.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I imagine you already know what the point of order is. The Minister just clearly cannot help himself, can he?

Mr SPEAKER: I think I made the point sufficiently clear in requiring the Minister to answer the question asked, and I think we should leave the matter at that point.

Rahui Katene: How will the Budget enable low-income New Zealanders to cope with the exorbitant price increases in basic foods such as butter, cheese, and milk, with butter having risen more than 30 percent in price, cheese being 9.2 percent more expensive than it was at the end of last year, and milk having a 6.3 percent increase in price?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Budget will include the allocation of many hundreds of millions of dollars for the adjustments in income support to lower-income New Zealanders who are dependent on that support. The consumer price index takes into account all of the price changes they face, and increases their income accordingly.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What alternative approaches to managing the Government’s finance is the Minister aware of?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We want to avoid the dangerously lopsided approach of the previous 5 years, where Government spending grew by 50 percent at a time when the economy grew by 25 percent. We simply cannot continue growing Government spending at twice the rate of the growth in the economy. It is just not feasible; it does not matter how much Labour members want to believe it.

Rahui Katene: Will the Minister support my bill on removing GST from healthy food, which was pulled from the ballot today, and which is about getting families ahead and helping them to eat healthily?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has made its position clear about GST: it does not intend to provide exemptions either now or in the tax package.

Health Services—Minister’s Statements

3. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements on health services?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, including the fact that the Labour Government left district health boards delivering over $150 million of unfunded health services, including the MidCentral District Health Board providing around $10 million in services that her Government did not fund.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What explanation can he offer to the Greater Auckland Integrated Health Network, which has now quit the planned integrated family health centres, saying that despite their being central to the National Government’s restructuring of primary health care, it has totally given up on creating them because his Government is offering no money to help set them up?

Hon TONY RYALL: The member is well aware that the Government believes that integrated family health centres will be developed by the private sector.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How do his statements tally with the Wanganui Chronicle report that half the people in Wanganui who are waiting to have ultrasound scans have now been told to look elsewhere as the health board tries to clear a log-jammed waiting list?

Hon TONY RYALL: There is an issue in Wanganui, resulting from the district health board’s difficulty in recruiting an additional sonographer. Some weeks ago I rang both the chair and the chief executive officer, and I was advised that of the referrals, all urgent and maternity cases are being dealt with. Those cases that fall outside the thresholds are being reviewed to see whether there is an alternative diagnostic approach or whether they still need such an assessment. This is not unusual, and happened under the previous Government.

Hon Darren Hughes: Why will Horowhenua and Ōtaki residents face a cut to the access they had to assessment, treatment, and rehabilitation beds at the Horowhenua Health Centre before the change of Government?

Hon TONY RYALL: Only days ago members opposite were telling the people in that community that all the beds would be closed. In fact, the proposal from the district health board is to maintain the same number of beds providing service for patients in Horowhenua. The challenges of the MidCentral District Health Board do not stem from any cuts to funding by the new Government. We have given the district health board an increase of $26 million this year, or 7 percent, which is one of the largest increases in the country, and there will be a significant increase again in the Budget. The board’s challenge arises from Labour’s legacy of mismanagement, leaving up to $10 million of unfunded services that the board is working hard to fill.

Dr Paul Hutchison: How is the Government filling the gap of over $150 million of unfunded services that it inherited from the previous Government?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Government is working hard with district health boards to deal with the legacy that we inherited, of $150 million of unfunded services. This year the Government invested an extra $536 million in district health boards up and down the country, and funding next year will put health on a record unprecedented by the failed crowd opposite.

Iain Lees-Galloway: How is allowing MidCentral District Health Board to cut overnight— [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member, but I ask his front-bench colleagues—more than one of them—to please show some courtesy to their own colleague.

Iain Lees-Galloway: How is allowing MidCentral District Health Board to cut overnight district nursing services better for people who are dying and wish to pass away with dignity in their own home?

Hon TONY RYALL: In relation to the overnight district nursing service, I have spoken to the chair and senior management at MidCentral District Health Board, and they assure me that alternative treatment plans will be put in place and people will be looked after. The service will also continue to work with the local Arohanui Hospice, which received an increase of around $300,000 extra this financial year. The district health board’s challenges do not stem from any reduction in funding by the new Government. We have given the district health board an extra $26 million this year.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Does Bill English’s comment to Grey Power that he knew their pain about home support cuts because his wife forced him to clean their bathroom reflect his view of cuts to home support for the elderly as well?

Hon TONY RYALL: Of course there will be difficult cases throughout this process, but I say to the member that if there are cases she would like me to look at as a result of these changes, I ask her to please forward them. I am advised that to date we have not received any advice from Ms Dyson on any of the cases she has raised in Parliament on this issue.

Hon Darren Hughes: I seek leave to table a document from the MidCentral District Health Board that outlines a proposal to cut 24 assessment, treatment, and rehabilitation beds in response to a lack of funding from the National Government.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table a document asking for further financial support on behalf of Bill English for the cleaning of his house.

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

Broadband Roll-out—Rural Initiative Progress

4. JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister for Communications and

Information Technology: What progress has the Government made on the Rural Broadband Initiative?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology): I am pleased to announce that today the Government has commenced its tender process for the $300 million Rural Broadband Initiative, which will boost Internet connectivity and growth in rural areas. It is unacceptable in the 21st century that around half of rural households are still coping with dialup speeds. The calls for expressions of interest released today will assist the prioritisation of regions and the development of minimum open-access requirements and service levels ahead of the request for proposal stage, which begins in a few months’ time.

John Hayes: What improvements will rural communities see in their broadband connection as a result of the Government’s initiative?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Rural communities, businesses, and schools will see a significant improvement over the next 6 years. Ninety-three percent of rural schools will receive fibre enabling speeds of at least 100 megabits per second, with the remainder to get speeds of at least 10 megabits per second. Over 80 percent of rural households will have access to broadband with speeds of at least 5 megabits per second, with the remainder to have speeds of at least 1 megabit per second. This will allow rural people to access content and to use online services at the meaningful speeds currently enjoyed by their urban counterparts.

Clare Curran: How does he respond to claims made by rural organisations that rural broadband is the poor cousin of urban broadband, given that a just-released KPMG report notes that only 1.6 percent of the new money that the Government initially proposed to put into broadband and fibre networks was targeted towards the 13.8 percent of the population that lives in rural communities— approximately 585,000 people—who between them grow, process, and export 66 percent of New Zealand’s merchandise exports?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure how the member gets to that percentage level with $300 million worth of subsidies for rural areas versus $1.35 billion worth of investment in urban areas, but I would make the following points. The different approaches of the urban and rural initiatives reflect the differing population densities of those communities and the different economics of supply. Therefore, the urban programme is an investment whereas rural areas receive grants, the urban programme will take longer, and the urban and rural networks—thanks to the previous Government—are starting from different points. Many rural households are unfortunately still struggling on dial-up. This measure is an important step forward in developing rural broadband, which was, sadly, neglected for a very long time under the previous Government.

Clare Curran: I seek leave to table the report KPMG Agribusiness Agenda: The big opportunities and challenges facing New Zealand agriculture.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Liquor Industry Representatives—Meetings with Associate Minister of Health

5. Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) to the Associate Minister of Health: How many times in 2009 did he meet with representatives of the liquor industry and what were the dates of these meetings?

Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health): During 2009 I met with representatives of the liquor industry four times: on 5 May, on 27 May, on 5 August, and on 7 September. I also attended three functions sponsored by representatives of the wider liquor and hospitality industries. In contrast, I met with officials and non - industry-related groups on a mere 41 occasions.

Hon Jim Anderton: Did he have any concerns as the Associate Minister of Health in charge of the Government’s alcohol policy that there could be a perception that he was overindulgent to the

liquor lobby by meeting with them four times in 4 months and being hosted by them on a further three occasions over 6 months?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I would have thought, on the basis of the figures I gave, that the concern that could be expressed was that I was paying less attention than I should to their interests.

Hon Jim Anderton: When his private health secretary wrote to Professor Doug Sellman, Professor of Psychiatry and Addiction Medicine, Director of the National Addiction Centre, and expert psychiatrist on the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs that he would not agree to meet with Professor Sellman because “he was aware of his thoughts on alcohol”, is he seriously suggesting that he was not aware of the thoughts of the alcohol industry when he met with them on seven occasions at the same time?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I am well aware of Professor Sellman’s views—indeed, they were stated on television last night—that alcohol should be treated as a class B drug and that people should not drink at weddings. I meet with a lot of people on alcohol-related matters over a range of issues. I have met with people from the United Nations drug and alcohol programme and the World Health Organization’s global alcohol strategy. I have visited various treatment facilities up and down this country. I have actually worked in this field for over 30 years.

Hon Jim Anderton: If the Minister understands Professor Sellman’s thoughts on alcohol so well, could he comment on Professor Sellman’s 5+ Solution and on the speech entitled “Ten things the Alcohol Industry won’t tell you about Alcohol”, which was recently presented in 38 public meetings held throughout New Zealand?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I am not aware of the 5+ Solution. I cannot recall the precise details of the ten things that he alleges the industry will not tell people, but the presentations are widely available. I have read them frequently.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is it correct as reported that he was “amused” by the doctors’ and nurses’ support for the 5+ Solution; if so, what is funny about 1,000 alcohol related deaths each year, or is he underplaying it because the statement identifies that the tactics being employed by the liquor industry are the same as those used by the tobacco industry?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I am not underplaying in any way the social and economic consequences of the misuse of alcohol. Indeed, I spent last Saturday evening out with the Wellington Central police and at the Wellington Hospital emergency department, viewing those very things.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I seek leave to table An historic opportunity to change New Zealand’s heavy drinking culture: A public statement by the Doctors and Nurses of New Zealand, supporting the 5+ Solution.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Jim Anderton: I seek leave to table “Ten things the Alcohol Industry won’t tell you about Alcohol” and the 5+ Solution, prepared by Professor Sellman.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is none. Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Burma—Officials Studying in New Zealand

6. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What are the job titles of the three Burmese Government officials sponsored via the Minister of Foreign Affairs to study in New Zealand, and what checks were made by the ministry to ensure that the officials had not held “controversial roles” in the Burmese regime?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs): All three Burmese officials taking part in the English Language Training for Officials programme are from the most junior of the six ranks of officials in the Burmese Public Service. The first official is an attaché from the planning

and administrative department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the second official is a staff officer from the general administration department of the Office of the Government, and the third official is a staff officer of the office administration of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The ELTO programme for ASEAN nations has provided English language training for over 750 officials in the 18 years it has been in operation; 35 of those officials have been from Burma. All Burmese nationals applying for entry are assessed by the immigration profiling group. Applicants considered to pose any risk to New Zealand are not granted a visa.

Keith Locke: What are we doing training Burmese Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials, whose job is to present the regime in the best possible light, using, after their training here, very good English?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: First of all, I say that it is generally felt that exposure to the principles of human rights, the rule of law, and democracy in New Zealand is generally regarded as a beneficial education for officials, in addition to the English language that they acquire in this country. Also, there have been 35 Burmese officials trained under the English Language Training for Officials scheme; there has never been a decision to suspend the scheme at any stage. The whole scheme was suspended pending a review in 2008, and there were no applicants from Burma in the first intake after it was reinstituted. In 2010, there were applicants from Burma. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade sought my concurrence to allow those applicants to be selected according to the long-established criteria.

Keith Locke: Using the same principles the Minister has just outlined, do we offer training through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to any officials from the Fiji regime in order to assist Fiji’s return to democracy?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: As I indicated in my primary answer, the English Language Training for Officials scheme is designed for the ASEAN nations, and, when I last inspected a map, Fiji was not located in South-east Asia.

Keith Locke: Will he give an assurance that Government officials from Burma, while in New Zealand, will not monitor the efforts here of anti-regime refugees?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I give the member an assurance that junior officials are selected for those programmes, and those who undertake the selection process give full consideration to the sorts of issues that the member has just outlined. This is an ASEAN-wide programme, which is intended to have a constructive influence. In addition to introducing English language, it also exposes those officials to good standards of governance, and to principles of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Those are regarded widely as beneficial matters. I say to the member that we have talked widely to our partners around the world about engagement with Burma. That member will be aware that the United States, under the Obama administration, made a decision to re-engage with Burma at a lower level. I took the opportunity personally to talk to Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Kurt Campbell, and also to the chairman of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Senator Jim Webb. They went to Burma to look at precisely how we can best contribute to that process through schemes of the sort that we operate.

Keith Locke: Does he accept that even the most junior officials will only be allowed to come here if they are totally supportive and loyal to the regime, and does he accept that it is possible that those officials will report back to the regime on the activities of Burmese anti-Government activists who live in New Zealand?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I hope that the officials who come to New Zealand on the scheme will report back to Burma on the excellent standards of governance, adherence to the rule of law, and respect for human rights that they have found in New Zealand. That is the sort of report I hope that they will convey to Burma. But I emphasis to the member that we do take seriously the concerns he raises. He does not need to convince me, or I am sure many other members of the House, that the standards of governance in Burma have been appalling. Anyone who saw the

bloody repression of Burmese monks on television on our screens would have some firm and not very supportive things to say about the regime. However, we are part of an international community that has decided that this year we will try to assist Burma to find a constructive way forward. The English Language Training for Officials scheme will make a minor contribution to that process, and we are mindful of the risks the member outlines in following that course.

Keith Locke: Does he not agree, though, that right now, when the Government of Burma has not freed Aung San Suu Kyi, is shutting the National League for Democracy out of the elections, and is clamping down on the Burmese people, it is not the time to give points by taking those people from a regime that he, a couple of years ago, described as the “butchers of Burma”?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I will not resile from any of the harsh things I have said about that regime in the past. I believe that it attracts the very strongest criticism for the steps that have been taken there to repress Burmese monks, in particular. I will say that since the middle of last year there has been a general international consensus that there should be some lower level of engagement with Burma in an attempt to try to encourage those elements in their society who do support moves towards democracy and respect for human rights to make some progress. I agree with the member that the features the member described in relation to the election this year are highly regrettable. New Zealand’s view on that is being expressed very firmly to the Burmese Government, as are, I am sure, the views of other communities around the world.

Keith Locke: Speaking of international work and cooperation, will New Zealand be joining with Australia and the United Kingdom, who are supporting the United Nations special rapporteur’s call for a UN commission to address human rights in Burma; if not, why not?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: We have not made any statement on that as yet. I will say that, generally, we try to work with our friends in like-minded countries around the world in pursuit of the principles of good governance, democracy, and respect for human rights.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a public document of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority decision, dated 29 June 2001, on the way in which Burmese refugees and their families are persecuted by the Burmese regime.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Agriculture Industry—Position in Global Market Place

7. Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) to the Minister of Agriculture: What reports, if any, has he recently received on the position of New Zealand’s agricultural industry in the global market place?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: The Minister receives numerous reports every day on the position of New Zealand’s agricultural industry in the global market.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Given his Government’s abolition of the research and development tax credits and the Fast Forward fund, does he agree with the recently released KPMG agribusiness report that says: “Despite much talk about the importance of improving the productivity of the New Zealand economy, the track record to date of the National-led government has suggested they are not fully committed to a view that science is a high priority driver of productivity ...”; if not, why not?

Hon NATHAN GUY: The Fast Forward fund is a fantasy in the minds of Opposition members. The Government replaced it with the Primary Growth Partnership fund, which actually has some money and is investing in science. The Fast Forward fund had no money, and had not bought any science. Let us get the facts out there.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If Mr O’Connor had asked for an explanation of what the Fast Forward fund was, then that answer would have addressed it from the

Government’s perspective. But he was asked whether the Minister agreed with a quote from KPMG—

Mr SPEAKER: Had the member asked just that, he might have got a different answer, but the member will recollect that the Hon Damien O’Connor said “Given” that the Government had done certain things, including abolishing the Fast Forward Fund. We cannot blame the Minister for picking up on that part of the question. The remedy lies in the hands of the—

Hon Damien O’Connor: Is it reasonable for me to expect an answer from the Minister or not?

Mr SPEAKER: Where the member adds superfluous information to a question, and the Minister chooses to comment on that question or challenge that information, I tell members not to ask me to assist in getting an answer. The remedy lies in the hands of questioners to ask tight, disciplined questions.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Given the Minister’s answer, how much of his Primary Growth Partnership money allocated to agricultural research has been given so far?

Hon NATHAN GUY: This is a very exciting initiative. We are working with the industry to ensure that it will work very, very well, unlike the failed policies of the last Government. I am unable to produce the figure at the moment, but I can say that this Government in Budget 2009 invested $30 million per annum, there will be $40 million in the next year’s Budget, $50 million in the Budget after that, and in the Budget after that, $70 million.

Hon Damien O’Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know it was a little noisy and I may have missed the answer if it was indeed there, but how much of the money has been given out so far?

Mr SPEAKER: If members want to hear clear answers, the remedy again lies in the hands of members to be a little less rowdy with interjections.

Hon Ruth Dyson: He didn’t know the answer.

Mr SPEAKER: No one is to make further comment now. The member did ask a very direct question. Unfortunately, though, the primary question asked was such that one could not necessarily expect the Minister to have that detailed information. The Minister indicated in his answer that he did not have that detailed information on him now, and that is a perfectly proper answer.

Hon Damien O’Connor: I do not want to trifle with the House but I seek leave to support the tabling of the KPMG report tabled by my colleague just a few minutes ago.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point order. The member will resume his seat. I fail to see how that has anything to do with order in the House. As I understand it, leave was sought to table the document and that has been granted. The Standing Orders do not provide for members to get to their feet on a point order and support the tabling of a document that has already been tabled.

David Shearer: Given that the KPMG report argues for the investment of leading-edge science in the wool and meat industries, how does he believe that this will occur with the loss of 36 top scientists and technicians from AgResearch, and what is his Government doing about it?

Hon NATHAN GUY: A Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry report was commissioned in 2009 to do with the meat, sheep, and beef industries. The Minister has said publicly on numerous occasions that if there was going to be any drive and rationalisation to do with these industries, then it needs to come from the industries themselves. We are also investing in research and development, which is a big part of the focus of this Government and of the Minister of Agriculture.

Hon Darren Hughes: Can the Minister confirm that the KPMG report received from the Government confirms that not one dollar has been allocated or spent on the Government’s programme, which he has been lauding in the House this afternoon?

Hon NATHAN GUY: I have not been able to get through the entire document, but as I said before to the former member for Ōtaki, this Government has a real focus on this initiative. The member should wait for the announcement in the Budget on 20 May.

Fishing, Recreational—Government Announcements

8. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture: What announcements has he recently made regarding research into recreational fishing?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture): Yesterday I announced the largest study of recreational fishing in a decade. It will commence this year, it will cost about $5 million over a number of years, and the results will greatly improve our understanding of how many people are fishing, diving, and gathering shellfish, where they fish, and how much they are catching. It will give information that will enable me to set better catch limits.

Tim Macindoe: What other research on recreational fishing is planned?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: From 1 October this year recreational charter fishing-boat operators will also start reporting how often they go fishing and how much of a particular high-value species of fish their clients are catching. These research and reporting projects will combine to give us the most comprehensive picture of recreational fishing in New Zealand that we have ever had.

Trucks—Changes to Vehicle Dimensions and Mass

9. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: What advice, if any, did he receive about truck driver safety before amending the land transport rule for vehicle dimensions and mass to allow heavier trucks on our roads?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): I received advice from officials following the consultation phase of the rule development and prior to my report to Cabinet. The advice concluded that the vast majority of high-productivity vehicles will be existing vehicles that are designed to operate at heavier weights. They will not be wider or taller, and they are required to meet all existing safety requirements and standards. Road controlling authorities will also have the ability to impose any reasonable additional safety requirements and improve driver training, as recommended. These are all consistent with the objectives of Safer Journeys.

Darien Fenton: Did he receive any advice about how allowing heavier trucks on our roads will exacerbate the safety risks for truck drivers, who routinely drive up to 100 hours a week, who are not taking any breaks, and who are scrimping on maintenance, before he amended the rule?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, and it stands to reason that if the heavier-productivity vehicles are on the roads, they will reduce the number of vehicle movements required for the same freight task. That would reduce the safety risk of those said vehicles.

Darien Fenton: Does he stand by his statement on Radio New Zealand earlier this week that the Sunday Star-Times article that revealed it is common for truck drivers to work well beyond the legal number of hours just so that they can earn enough to make ends meet was the first time that he had heard of these problems; if so, how many truck drivers has he spoken with since he became the Minister of Transport?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have spoken to a number of truck drivers since I became the Minister of Transport, and none have raised that issue with me. I have received two items of correspondence in relation to work and logbook rules. I note that the Sunday Star-Times article raised an issue in relation to only one driver. If the member has concerns about the flouting of work, logbook, and time rules, then I strongly suggest that she contact the police or the New Zealand Transport Agency and get them to investigate those concerns.

Darien Fenton: Does he agree that there should be an investigation into any link that there may be between road safety and low rates of pay for truck drivers; if not, why not?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No; I do not believe that an investigation is necessary unless there is a systematic abuse of the system. If the member has evidence of such abuse, then she should present that evidence either to me or to the New Zealand Transport Agency and to the police, because generally in this country if somebody is breaking the law, we have an enforcement agency called

the police, and in transport we have another one called the New Zealand Transport Agency. That is what they are there for, so she should pass the information on to them.

Māori Affairs, Minister—Visit to UN

10. DAVID GARRETT (ACT) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Did the Government inform Māori Television that he was flying to New York to speak to the UN; if so, on what date?

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Minister of Māori Affairs: Māori Television was briefed in confidence on Friday, 9 April 2010, to enable it to send a reporter and a camera operator to New York in time for the announcement.

David Garrett: Did the Prime Minister advise him before his trip to New York that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples would have “no effect whatsoever”; if so, how does he justify the secrecy and expense of the trip?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: It was very clear what the parameters of the declaration were. There was no secrecy to the Minister’s going to New York. The Prime Minister signalled very early last year that this matter would be on the agenda this year. There has been no secrecy.

David Garrett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was quite specific: did the Prime Minister advise him that the declaration would have “no effect whatsoever”, which was a direct quote from the Prime Minister. It was not about the contents of the document, which was the subject of the answer given on the Minister’s behalf.

Mr SPEAKER: If I recollect correctly, that was not the question the member asked, at all. I seem to recollect there was another hunk to the question, and that was what Minister Turia chose to focus on in her answer. That is the thing: if members want a particular point to be covered in an answer, they must not add more, because that enables the Minister to latch on to the bit they did not particularly want to be focused on. I believe that the Minister adequately answered the question.

David Garrett: Will he be advising Tūhoe that, as the Prime Minister stated, the declaration he signed in New York will have “no effect whatsoever”, and that they—Tūhoe—are mistaken in citing the declaration in their claim to ownership of Te Urewera National Park?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: It is very clear that this declaration must fall within the parameters of New Zealand law and within the Treaty obligations that have been agreed between the Crown and Māori people, and that is also how the Tūhoe decision will be made.

Kelvin Davis: What is it his intention to travel all the way to New York to, as the Māori Party says, sign the declaration, or was he, as the National Government says, going over there just to affirm it, and which of these affirmations or declarations will help the most to reduce Māori prison numbers and unemployment, and increase Māori educational achievement?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: It was appropriate for the Government to make its first statement publicly to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues as it was the setting in which much of the declaration was negotiated.

Question No. 11 to Minister

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I seek leave to have my question held over until a day when the Minister of Education is present in the Chamber.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to have question No. 11 in the name of Sue Moroney held over to another day. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.

Early Childhood Education—Minister’s Statement

11. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement to the House on 1 April 2009 that “quality early childhood education and care is a high priority for the Government”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yes.

Sue Moroney: What did she mean, then, when she told the Early Education Federation at a meeting on 25 March that the Government has to address the increasing costs of early childhood education and there are some tough decisions to be made?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Government spending on early childhood education has increased from $428 million in 2004-05 to $1,120 million this last year, so it has almost trebled in 5 years. This Government wants to make sure that the taxpayer is getting good value for three times the expenditure on early childhood education, so we are looking at where the expenditure is less effective, so that we can move it to where it is more effective.

Sue Moroney: Will the Minister guarantee to continue the funding that early childhood services with 80 to 100 percent qualified staff receive?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will just have to wait until the Budget to find out about the measures that the Government has taken, but I think that any sensible person who was looking at this sector would say that when expenditure has gone up by 300 percent, the Government should have a pretty good look at whether that is actually working. I might say it is a much faster rise in expenditure than the previous Labour Government ever budgeted for.

Sue Moroney: Why has the Minister decided to shelve National’s election promise of 2008 to improve staff ratios for under-2-year-olds by deferring that for another 3 years, as she informed the Early Education Federation at that March meeting?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have already said, this is an area where Government spending has gone up by 300 percent, which is much faster than the previous Government had budgeted for when it made changes to the system. It imagined the spending would go up a bit, but it has gone up by 300 percent, so the Government is looking at all aspects of early childhood education, to ensure that we are getting value for money. The most important issue is that despite that large rise in expenditure, the children who most need early childhood education still are not receiving it, and the Government is determined to fix that problem.

Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table a document titled “Meeting with the Hon. Anne Tolley, Minister of Education—25 March 2010”.

Mr SPEAKER: What is the source of the document?

Sue Moroney: It is the minutes of a meeting that the Early Education Federation had with the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Aquaculture—Government Support

12. SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for Economic

Development: What support is the Government giving to encourage the development of the aquaculture industry in New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development): Last week I announced that the Government is contributing $1.69 million to develop a shared research facility for seafood and aquaculture innovation, which is likely to result in substantial national economic benefits. The facility will allow greater collaboration between research organisations, education providers, and industry. The aquaculture industry will benefit from the world-class science undertaken at the Cawthron Institute’s new $5.73 million facility in Nelson.

Shane Ardern: There must be more. What other support is the Government giving to encourage the development of the aquaculture industry in New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Quite apart from the fact that the aquaculture industry in New Zealand finds it a refreshing change to deal with the current Government, my colleague the Hon Phil Heatley is advancing new legislation to provide a better framework for the industry. We have

also supported the development of new markets for New Zealand aquacultural product through the aquaculture market development contestable fund, and in January of this year I announced a further $500,000 to help New Zealand aquaculture companies to take advantage of emerging markets offshore. We expect the activity generated by new projects will build on the five projects that are already under way for two of aquaculture’s flagship species: greenshell mussels and king salmon. Along with Pacific oysters, these species are major contributors to the growth of aquacultural production in New Zealand. The industry is working hard to establish its brand in international markets, although I must say it does not appear to be putting itself through the same contortions that the Labour Party is over its brand.

Question No. 3 to Minister

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier in question time I sought leave to table a document. The leave was declined because, according to members opposite, it had been previously tabled. I have had an inquiry from Grey Power, which wants to publish it. I have been on to the website but I cannot find that document; that might be due to my computer skills. I wonder whether the website is working well, or whether those documents are not put up there.

Mr SPEAKER: Is the member talking about the parliamentary website and documents tabled? I am advised that documents tabled by leave are not placed on the website; they are placed on the Table here by the end of the day.

ENDS