Questions and Answers - Thursday, 13 September 2007

Questions to Ministers

Corrections, Minister—Rugby Tour Advice

1. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Corrections: Did he advise the Prime Minister of his intention to take a suspended prison manager with him on a rugby tour, since the Cabinet Office manual states that “the Prime Minister should be advised in writing of conflicts that are of particular concern or that require ongoing management”; if not, why not?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections): No; I made an independent decision.

Simon Power: Has he read the section in the Cabinet Manual that states that “appearances and proprietary can be as important as actual conflict of interest in establishing what is acceptable behaviour”; if so, how would those whistleblowers who made the allegations against the suspended prison manager perceive his inclusion on the rugby tour as anything other than a personal endorsement from the Minister?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I cannot prejudge what they may or may not think regarding the decision. In hindsight, I believe I made the wrong call. It has placed unnecessary stress on my ministerial colleagues, on my staff, and on my triumphant parliamentary rugby team. For that I apologise, and that is why I offered to resign.

Simon Power: Does he agree that despite transferring responsibility for Mr Morgan’s investigation because of Mr Morgan’s relationship with his senior private secretary, his decision to include Mr Morgan on the tour actually strengthened the appearance of a conflict of interest by establishing a direct link between the suspended prison officer and himself that could be perceived to influence the investigation?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Again, I cannot prejudge what perceptions one might or might not draw from this decision. I said that in hindsight I believe the call was wrong. Perhaps it was naive of me to think that I could keep sport free of politics.

Simon Power: Can he confirm reports that indicate that in addition to warnings from his senior private secretary, Mr Morgan himself questioned whether his inclusion in the rugby tour would create a conflict; and if they could both see the conflict it could create, why could he not?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I had discussions in my office. I had no direct contact at all with Mr Morgan. As I said before, I now in hindsight realise that that call was the wrong one.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether Mr Morgan played in any other parliamentary rugby team games prior to going to France and post the launching of an inquiry into the prison officers, in which he was concerned; if the answer is yes, if there was not a conflict of interest in those prior games, why would there be one just because he went to France?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I can confirm that he was an active participant in the parliamentary rugby team for at least 3 years prior to the trip to France and played a very active role in a number of charity games around the country, and for that we are grateful.

Simon Power: How can he now have any moral authority as the Minister of Corrections to speak out against corruption in prisons, when his actions send a message to other staff that zero tolerance does not apply if a prison officer is to travel with the Minister?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: That is a ridiculous assertion. Every inquiry is completely independent of the Minister’s office or anyone in my office. I have full confidence that the inquiry will continue and make its rightful conclusions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether he regrets that this country has become so politically correct that even something as innocent as a charity rugby game is now to be the cause of allegations of a conflict of interest, and does he recall the way his colleague Mr Parker was treated when he was found to be totally innocent and did not receive one apology from the people who made the allegations in the first place?

Madam SPEAKER: I let the other question from the member go to the Minister, even though it was questionable whether it was within a ministerial responsibility, but the matter had been raised generally. But I think for that question there is clearly no ministerial responsibility.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not contesting your ruling, but the point I am trying to make is the question that goes to the core of the Minister’s judgment. The point I am trying to make is that this country is so descended to that sort of petty politics that that is a central issue of ministerial responsibility. Personally I believe it is not; I believe that people are entitled to a private life and an opportunity to go offshore, albeit briefly, paid for by themselves. I think I can ask the Minister whether he regrets the circumstances that he is in.

Madam SPEAKER: I think the member has made his point quite clearly, through what was not a point of order.

Simon Power: How does he think the 5,800 Department of Corrections staff feel when they hear the Prime Minister say he will continue to be their Minister for the moment, as a punishment; will they feel any better knowing they will be hamstrung by having him as a caretaker Minister until the fifth Minister of Corrections under Labour is announced?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I do not think anyone has ever pretended that the Department of Corrections portfolio is an easy one. I will continue to do my job to make the changes necessary and improvements in the Department of Corrections that we have seen since the National Government let the department languish for too long. We have made huge improvements in reducing the number of escapes, reducing the assault rate in prisons, and expanding the number of drug and alcohol treatment places in prisons. I will continue to get on and do that job.

Simon Power: Does he think that the Prime Minister has confidence in him as Minister of Corrections, and is he confident of keeping the portfolio after the reshuffle?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I believe she has confidence in me to continue in the job as long as she and Cabinet decide that that should be the case.

Question time interrupted.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Land Transport—Investment

2. MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Transport: How much is the Government expecting to invest in land transport in the 2007-08 year?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport): This Labour-led Government is forecast to invest over $2.7 billion in land transport in the coming year, which is about $300 million more than we expect to collect through fuel excise duty, road-user charges, and motor vehicle registrations over the year. That compares with 1999, when the then Government collected $1.7 billion yet invested only $1.1 billion.

Martin Gallagher: What reports has she seen about the dedication of all land transport revenues, such as fuel excise duty, into the National Land Transport Fund?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I have seen the Hansard of 5 April 1995, which documents the debate on the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ Road Transport Revenues Fund Bill, which aimed to dedicate all petrol tax to roading. Labour and the Alliance voted for that bill. However, all except one National member voted against it, including the current spokesperson on transport, Mr Williamson. Mr Williamson did not want the petrol tax paid by the people of New Zealand to go into roading, and he doubted whether the Labour Party would support the bill, which it did. Mr Williamson went on to say it was unlikely that the Labour Party, if it came to power, would dedicate all that revenue to land transport. How wrong he was!

Hon Peter Dunne: How much of the spending is to be allocated to the most dangerous stretches of road or traffic black spots, to make them safer and to lower the road toll further, in light of the fact that the Government now seems unwilling to increase the driving age from 15 despite widespread support for such a measure?

Hon ANNETTE KING: A sizable proportion of the National Land Transport Fund is dedicated to improving roading and addressing black spots. But I would say to the member that he ought to test this House as to whether it wishes to raise the driving age of young New Zealanders. I think it is probably timely that this House was tested to see whether it would like to see the age raised. It is question that this House could decide on.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister seen the International Energy Agency report of July this year, which I have raised previously in the House and which is now featured on the cover of the Listener, saying that demand for oil is expected to exceed supply by 2012, leading to shortages and price rises; and is she not concerned that the billions of dollars planned for motorways might be better spent on less oil-dependent alternatives?

Hon ANNETTE KING: There does need to be a balance of expenditure between roads, whether they are State highways or local roads, and other alternatives, including passenger transport. I am proud that this Government has, to a very large extent, taken that issue on board and put its money where its mouth is. I know that the member appreciates that, including the investment we have made into rail, which was badly neglected in this country. We are committed to investing further funding into passenger transport, because we do need to ensure that more people shift off the roads and into public transport. I believe we will see that over the years to come.

Martin Gallagher: What further reports has she seen about the dedication of all land transport revenues, such as fuel excise duty, into the National Land Transport Fund?

Hon ANNETTE KING: On 25 July this year I announced the full hypothecation or dedication of all fuel excise duty to land transport activities. This decision ensures that the funds collected from road transport users will be used to fund activities that benefit those same users, whether it is in roading or in passenger transport. I saw, however, in the Wanganui Chronicle this week that the doubter Mr Williamson said that National now supports this policy, so I presume that is another policy flip-flop.

Peter Brown: Noting that answer and the answers to the earlier questions, does the Minister accept that by transferring all the petrol tax across to the National Land Transport Fund now, instead of next July, the need for a regional tax in Auckland could very well be negated?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The short answer, I am sorry to tell the member, is no.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister seen the 3 News poll from Sunday night that shows that 55 percent of New Zealanders believe that this Government is not doing enough to combat climate change, and is that not a really strong mandate for her to shift more money out of unsustainable roading and into—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Walking.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: —more choice for the travelling public, like better public transport, ride-sharing, facilities for cycling, and yes, Winston, even walking?

Hon ANNETTE KING: That is exactly what this Government has been doing, and maybe one day the member will even give us credit for the big changes we have made to the investment into public transport and into roads and cycleways, and for the commitment we have made to ensure that the new roads that are built take account of those issues. Unfortunately, we mainly get the brickbats.

Electoral Finance Bill—Regulated Period

3. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: What reasons did he give in his Cabinet paper entitled Review of the Electoral Finance Regime for recommending that the regulated period operate from 1 January to polling day?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House), on behalf of the Minister of Justice: That a longer regulated period would enable a greater proportion of what is actually campaign expenditure to be accounted for.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that in the Cabinet paper there was one sentence covering the matter he has just raised, and can he tell us how Cabinet came to such a significant and Draconian decision on the basis of one sentence of reasons?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I cannot confirm that there was only once sentence in the Cabinet paper on that matter. I can count nine.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that an exception to the 1 January regulated period has been made for organisations communicating with their own members, which will effectively legalise pamphlets like the Council of Trade Unions’ Election 05 pamphlet openly endorsing the Labour Party—

Hon Annette King: And they declared it.

Hon Bill English: —and that they will be allowed to spend as much as they like on such pamphlets?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As my colleague reminds me, the Council of Trade Unions actually declared that pamphlet, unlike some others we could mention. Secondly, that exception could equally apply to organisations such as Business New Zealand, which, to my knowledge, has never campaigned on behalf of the Labour Party.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the effect of the Electoral Finance Bill will be that unions will be able to leave this kind of pamphlet in every staff room, every supermarket, every fast food outlet—in fact, everywhere that they have some members—and will be able to spend unlimited amounts of money on it?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: To follow up my previous answer, I can confirm that organisations can distribute to their membership, and that covers organisations that notoriously tend to support the National Party. For example, I am sure that the same rules would apply for the organisation that laughably calls itself the Kyoto Forestry Association.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister received reports to the effect that only one party in this Parliament is concerned about the 1 January date, due to the fact it is awash with money and will have been forced by the end of the year—prior to 1 January—to have spent it on billboards talking about one law for all and “Kiwi not iwi”, which is the kind of material it ran for the last election?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I can confirm that fact, and I can further confirm that yesterday Mr English tried to give the impression that the “Iwi/Kiwi” billboards were not actually electioneering. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. [Interruption] Now, if we have finished the interchanges outside of the Standing Orders, we will return to the Standing Orders.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister explain why, when the Government has set the regulated period at up to 11 months in election year, it has kept the cap for candidate spending at $20,000, which now has to cover 11 months rather than 3 months, and is this a shoddy attempt to protect useless Labour MPs who are expecting to get rolled from their seats?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, what it is more likely to do is to stop National Party candidates with extraordinarily deep pockets, who have been running around the business sector getting very large donations and spending vast sums of money, from getting their useless backsides back into this place.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister now telling us that although an incumbent member of Parliament will be able to spend his or her full public funding for parliamentary purposes, and the leader’s office of any party will be able to spend large amounts of public money on information and on selling its party, a candidate who wants to stand against an incumbent MP will be able to spend only $20,000 in the whole of the election year, when the previous rules were $20,000 in 3 months?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What the member skates over—as he did yesterday—is the fact that parliamentary spending is capped. It is not an open-ended budget, at all, whereas what a number of National Party candidates want to spend is a totally open-ended budget. Secondly, he also skates over the fact that there are rules around that, and that it cannot be electioneering within a strict definition. That is most important. Of course, what is most difficult for the National Party is that it has to be promoting policy. When a party does not have any policies, spending money on blank billboards is a waste of money.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the law designed to stop, as an example, what happened in Aoraki at the last election when Jo Goodhew raised $51,000 by way of donations, only to come to Parliament and after that disappear from public sight?

Madam SPEAKER: I am not sure what the ministerial responsibility for that is.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The last part, I think, at least shows us that every cloud has a silver lining.

Hon Bill English: Why is it that the Government supports a much tighter restriction on political candidates than there used to be, at the same time as it has opened up for unlimited spending on publications like this one from the union movement?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The limit on political spending increases the time within which the money is able to be spent—there always were those limits. The matter that the member refers to has always been uncapped, but, of course, he can always raise the issues via the select committee process, should he actually deign to turn up to participate in it.

Refugees—Fraudulent Claims and Refugee Status

4. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he believe someone who the Refugee Status Appeals Authority states “has a history of giving false evidence about numerous matters concerning his claimed Christian activities including the alleged consequences of those activities.” and “has produced fabricated documents in both his first and his second refugee claim, including self-serving fraudulent letters.” is the kind of person New Zealand should consider granting refugee status to?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): I believe that Immigration New Zealand and the relevant appellate bodies—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: If members wish to have a conversation, they will please take it outside the Chamber.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The debate back here is taking place because someone behind me made a rather serious allegation. All I said was: “Look, I never crooked some old Japanese lady.”

Madam SPEAKER: That is all very interesting, but it is not a point of order.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I believe that Immigration New Zealand and the relevant appellate bodies, which have all of the relevant information before them, are the best places to decide whether a person meets the requirements for the grant of refugee status, rather than the court of public opinion. Of course, I have refrained from referring to specific appellate bodies or tribunals by name in relation to a specific case.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would just like to indicate that my next question will be slightly longer than I would normally ask, but it does contain—

Madam SPEAKER: That is all right.

Peter Brown: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does the Minister believe that someone who, during his initial refugee claim and first appeal, maintained that he was baptised in New Zealand, not in Korea, then subsequently claimed to have been baptised in Korea before he moved to New Zealand, and even produced what was judged to be a false Korean baptism certificate to support his claim—a move that led the Refugee Status Appeals Authority to note the appellant’s “willingness and propensity to produce false documents to bolster his claims and then to modify his evidence wherever necessary to patch up any inconsistencies in those false documents”—is the kind of person New Zealand should allow to remain here?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am prevented by the relevant sections of the Immigration Act from commenting on this matter in any detail. I judge that it would also be inappropriate for me to prejudge a matter that may come before me at some future date.

Keith Locke: Why does New Zealand not follow the example of Australia and some other countries in not deporting Christian converts from Islam back to Iran, because of the dangers of persecution there, particularly since President Ahmadinejad came to power?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is not appropriate for me to comment on the policies of other countries. I would note, however, that no advisory has been received from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in respect of that country. I can further confirm that the New Zealand Government is continuing to negotiate with the Iranian Government on seeking a resolution to travel document issues for Iranian nationals.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister believe that a person whose “attendance at church, his conversion of an Iranian woman and his attempts to convert remand refugees were all activities calculated for the sole purpose of advancing his refugee claim”, as stated by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority, which rejected his claim that he made a genuine conversion to Christianity, is the kind of person New Zealand should allow to stay here?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I repeat that I am prevented by the relevant sections of the Immigration Act from commenting on this matter in any detail.

Keith Locke: Is not the Minister’s approach of trying to deport Iranian Christian converts to third countries both unrealistic, in that it would be hard to find a country that would grant them permanent residence, and also saying that New Zealand is heartless or less compassionate than other countries in this respect?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: In respect of the first part of the question, I am advised that there are indeed real possibilities for third-country removal for people in the same type of situation as this particular case. In respect of the second part of the question, I do not believe that the New Zealand Government has acted heartlessly in this matter—quite the reverse.

Peter Brown: Can the Minister confirm that the appellant in refugee appeals 74256 and 75889, from which the quotes in my preceding questions were drawn, is an Iranian who has recently ended what his supporters, such as Keith Locke, have called a hunger strike, but what his lawyer now claims was “a farce, and not done to try to blackmail the Government”, and what was ultimately probably nothing more than a farce, and can the Minister confirm who this man is?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am prevented by the relevant sections of the Immigration Act from commenting on this matter in any detail.

Peter Brown: I seek leave to table refugee appeal No. 74256 from the Refugee Status Appeals Authority.

Leave granted.

Peter Brown: I seek leave to table refugee appeal No. 75889 from the Refugee Status Appeals Authority.

Leave granted.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table an article headed “Germany halts deportation of Iranian Christian” from BosNewsLife News Center.

Leave granted.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table an article from People’s Daily Online headed “Netherlands suspends deportation of homosexual …”—

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

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a press statement from Peter Brown on 17 August headed: “Setting the Record Straight”.

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

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a second statement by Peter Brown, 90 minutes later on the same day, with the same heading but half the size because—

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

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table the transcript of a Scoop interview with Peter Brown where he tries to explain—

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

Peter Brown: I seek leave to table an article by Keith Locke where he advocates and supports Pol Pot.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a document setting out how we followed Australia with respect to the Tampa refugees—they took none and we took all of them.

Leave granted.

Beneficiaries—Debt to Work and Income

5. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How many beneficiaries are in debt to Work and Income and how much do they owe?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) on behalf of the Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment: I am advised that 178,496 current Work and Income clients have debts that they owe, and that the total owing is $324.8 million. That money includes benefit overpayments, benefit fraud, and recoverable assistance, which constitutes 43 percent of established debt. The vast majority of those debts are under $1,000 each.

Judith Collins: Can the Minister confirm the answer to question for written answer No. 11509, which showed that almost 70 percent of beneficiaries are in debt to Work and Income, and is that figure acceptable?

Hon RUTH DYSON: It depends on the cause of the debt. Forty-three percent of that debt includes advance repayments. I am sure that even that member would support our social security system being used to advance money that is then repaid to the State, rather than those people having to resort to loan sharks—or maybe that is her preference.

Russell Fairbrother: What steps is the Government taking to reduce the amount of benefit-related debt?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The most significant thing we are doing is getting people off benefits and into paid work. Under the Labour-led Government, New Zealand has achieved record low unemployment levels. We are also taking an early intervention approach to detect potential overpayments and stop them from continuing. Data matching is taking place between the Inland Revenue Department, the Department of Corrections, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Customs Service, the Accident Compensation Corporation, the Housing New Zealand Corporation, and Work and Income. The Ministry of Social Development is investigating all suspected cases of overpayments, and where fraud is being committed the ministry is prosecuting.

Judith Collins: How can it be that benefit numbers have gone down but benefit debt has gone up?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I recommend a new maths approach to the member, who consistently uses new maths. For example, in her press statement of 6 July she compared beneficiary numbers and got them wrong, she compared debt levels and got them wrong, and she compared numbers of staff managing beneficiary debt and got them wrong. The member needs to get her facts right, before she poses a question.

Judith Collins: How can it be that in 2002 beneficiary debt was $500 million, and now, 5 years later, we have fewer beneficiaries but a debt of $750 million is owed by current beneficiary and former beneficiaries?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The member is comparing the number of people who were on a benefit with the number who are on a benefit and off a benefit. One cannot compare one lot of data sets with another, then say the figures are moving in the wrong direction. The total number of people on benefits is down, the total number of people who are working on benefit fraud is actually down, and the total debt is down. The member needs to get her facts right, before she can ask a serious question in the House.

Judith Collins: Does she agree with the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development, Peter Hughes, who in 2005 said: “Benefit debt is a bad thing. It gets in the way of people getting on with their lives. It gets in the way of people being able to stay in work and move forward and succeed.”; if beneficiary debt was such a bad thing in 2005, how come, according to his ministry’s figures, 70 percent of current beneficiaries are in debt to Work and Income?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I support people, whether they are on benefits or in low-income jobs, being able to get recoverable assistance—financial support—through our social security system, rather than having to resort to loan sharks. That member clearly does not support that view. The amount of debt that is being established under our Government, excluding the recoverable assistance advances, has fallen from 1.61 percent of total benefit expenditure in 2001-02, to 1.18 percent. That is in the opposite direction of the incorrect figures that that member continues to put out.

Judith Collins: How can it be in the best interest of beneficiaries for them to be encouraged to take on debt they simply cannot afford, to the extent that 70 percent of current beneficiaries are now in debt to Work and Income—and that is not even including all those who are in debt everywhere else?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Recoverable assistance should be, and is, available to people on benefits or in low-income jobs. If it is that member’s party’s policy to return to the 1990s, when people on benefits or low incomes had to resort to going to loan sharks for essential items, then that will be really bad news for a lot of New Zealanders.

Physical Activity—Promotion

6. DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) to the Minister for Sport and Recreation: What is the Government doing to promote physical activity among New Zealanders?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation): This weekend kicks off a 7-week Push Play campaign targeting people who want to exercise more but who lead busy lives and do not know how to get going. The campaign provides Kiwis with an activity diary that will enable them to devise a plan that suits their lifestyle. They will receive support in emails from celebrities such Tawera Nikau, Maggie Barry, and Robbie Magasiva. People who take part in Push Play Nation with be rewarded with health and will be entered to win prizes donated by the private sector.

Darren Hughes: Can the Minister for Sport and Recreation tell the House whether he has seen any other proposals for promoting physical activity in this country?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have seen quite a few. I have seen some very active members, including probably the best-looking 60-year-old in the House at the moment. My colleague Chris Finlayson was active this morning. But I have seen a report from the National Party, which seems to think that junk food is an appropriate reward for enticement into sport. That is something I disagree with.

Question No. 7 to Minister

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Question No. 7 was set down for the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues. I note that the quote that is specifically used in the question, “We have not grown our coal-fired power”, is clearly recorded in Hansard as being from the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues. So I am surprised that the question has been redirected. The question specifically refers to the issue of the Government’s policy of carbon neutrality. I wish to be reassured that in my supplementary questions I will not be constrained as a consequence of the Government’s decision to divert the question.

Madam SPEAKER: I understand the member’s point. As the member well knows, it is within the discretion of the Government to decide to whom the question is assigned.

Hon Chris Carter: It must be simple; it is the same person.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That Minister well knows that Ministers will often duck questions simply because questions have not been set down for the right Minister.

Madam SPEAKER: Would we please just settle. Would the member ask the question without interruption.

Coal-fired Power—Carbon Neutrality

7. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Energy: How does he reconcile his statement to the House last Wednesday, “We have not grown our coal-fired power”, with the official Government figures showing an increase from 1,533 GWh in 2000, or 4 percent of New Zealand’s power, to 5,119 GWh in 2006, or 12 percent of New Zealand’s power, and with the Government’s goal of carbon neutrality?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister of Energy: I will answer on behalf of the Minister of Energy and the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues, who is currently opening yet another wind farm. No new coal-fired generation has been built in the term of this Labour-led Government. The rise in generation is because of cheap Māui gas running out and the Huntly power station switching from using primarily gas to using primarily coal. But I am pleased to inform the House that last year less coal was burnt for generation than in the year prior to that. This trend will continue because of the recent commissioning of Huntly E3P Power Station and substantial renewable investments by both State-owned enterprises and Contact Energy.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the expanded use of coal under this Government—seven times that of new wind energy—be consistent with the Government’s goal of carbon neutrality, when coal is the dirtiest form of energy and the single-largest global source of greenhouse gases?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Some people can tell the difference between capacity and generation. If people had been brighter in the past and we had all understood the importance of climate change 20, 30, or 40 years ago—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Even 10 years ago.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: —or even 10 years ago, then we would not be in this situation. I am not prepared to do what that member suggests, which is to shut down the power station and have Kiwis go cold at night. That is what that member wants.

Dave Hereora: Has the Minister received any reports on the future of thermal generation?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: As it happens, I have. I have also seen a report that Nicky Wagner supports carbon neutrality.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Not true.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have seen a report that Nicky Wagner supports carbon neutrality. I have seen reports that Nick Smith wants to get out of the Kyoto Protocol at the first opportunity. I have seen reports that John Key wants to stay in Kyoto, but I have seen a report that states that John Key thinks it is all a hoax. I have seen a report that the National Party’s spokesperson on energy is bullish on the future role of fossil fuels, and all I can say is that the National Party at some time is going to have to say what its policy is rather than going around emitting a whole pile of methane.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: If Governments during the 1990s had taken the repeated advice of many energy analysts, who urged them to renegotiate the Māui gas agreements to allow a slower depletion rate and a longer lifetime for the field through more efficient use of the gas, would we be burning as much coal at Huntly as we currently are?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That is a really interesting question, and I think the answer is probably not. But there are some other factors involved, such as whether Methanex would have kept going for longer under that sort of arrangement if the gas was available for longer, and on the balance of the different sorts of fossil fuels it is very hard to say what would have happened. But certainly the National Party has to take a lot of responsibility for the fact that we are running out of gas.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Seeing that the Minister has challenged National about its ideas on climate change, I seek leave to table our paper A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand.

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How does the Government’s decision to spend $3.4 million on a brand new 8 megawatt coal burner at the Waiōuru Military Camp that, over its 30-year life, will emit one million tonnes of carbon dioxide sit with the Government’s policy of a carbon neutral Public Service?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I know that that member prefers cold soldiers. We prefer them to have reliable energy and that means, of course, that we will have to make other savings within the Public Service.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the Minister aware that the army’s new coal-fired boiler will emit 100 times as much carbon dioxide as the Ministry for the Environment will save by going carbon neutral, and does that not show the shallowness of the Government having a handful of paper-pushing departments going carbon neutral while the real sources of carbon are ignored?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Not only the Public Service but the State sector is going in that direction. It will take time and it will—

Hon Bill English: What’s the difference?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, I know the difference, even if the member does not. After having been a Minister for 6 or 9 years, Bill English is showing his ignorance again. It is a challenge and this Government is up to it, but the Opposition does not care.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister say that the Government is heading in the right direction, when that one new coal burner, which started to operate this week, will emit more carbon each year than all the Government departments that are proposed to be carbon neutral by 2012 will save—in fact, it will be 60 times the amount of emissions saved by the idea of the Government’s VIP fleet going to more efficient cars—and is it not true that the Government is trying to catch mice while forgetting about the elephants of climate change?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: We can see mice, and we can see a rat as well. This just shows to Parliament the fact that as a country we have an enormous challenge. It takes time to implement policies like this, and I for one am not prepared to go to Waiōuru and tell the soldiers that we do not care whether they freeze.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the documents in respect of the new boiler at Waiōuru, where there were alternatives of both wood-generated—

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

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I seek leave to table the PPans weekly report of 10 August 2007, where it states that Gerry Brownlee was quite bullish about the role for fossil fuels—

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

Question No. 2 to Minister

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): I seek leave to table a document that actually relates to the answers to question No. 2, which is the 3 News TNS poll of people’s views on climate change.

Leave granted.

Māori Land Court—Services

8. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister for Courts: What is he doing to enhance services at the Māori Land Court?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Courts: Last week the refurbished Tai Rāwhiti Māori Land Court was opened by the Minister for Courts. The Tai Rāwhiti Māori Land Court is the fifth Māori Land Court premise to have been substantially refurbished in the past 3 years. The others are at Christchurch, Wellington, Rotorua, and Hastings.

Moana Mackey: What work is already being done in the Māori Land Court to improve services?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: The Māori Land Court has benefited from the largest-ever ongoing investment in court facilities, under this Labour-led Government. We have invested in information technology infrastructure, and in access to court records through the Māori Freehold Land Registration Project and Māori Land Online, and work is ongoing on the new geographical information systems project.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Does the Minister agree with the comments made by the Labour MP Shane Jones in the Mana article “Māori land: a blessing or a curse” that the Māori Land Court is a relic of colonialism and is set upon maintaining its own perpetuality; and what does he think his colleague meant by such comments?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I would invite that member to ask him sometime. Certainly, it is both of those things. Like the high performance of my colleague over in France for the rugby, I am certain he has a really clear view on the Māori land issue.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What progress has been achieved in actioning the recommendations from the Law Commission, Te Ohu Kai Moana, and the Māori Land Court itself that the Māori Land Court should be empowered to resolve, mediate, and determine disputes arising from the receipt and administration of Treaty settlement assets?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I certainly can assure that member that, along with Te Ohu Kai Moana and the devolution of the assets, they doing very well within the framework of the legislation, and are certainly well-minded by that court.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I thought the question was rather specific and asked about the progress. With respect, I do not believe I really got an answer to the question. Would it be appropriate to ask the Minister to have another shot at it, please?

Madam SPEAKER: Could the Minister just make a reference to the Law Commission report, which I think was the substance of the question.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Several aspects have come out of the Law Commission report, and, certainly, they are being practised in a whole lot of forums, as that member understands.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect, the answer really just told me there is a number of reports. We are asking for a little bit more depth to the answer, if that is possible. Could we have another shot, please?

Madam SPEAKER: Unfortunately, the member cannot actually get the answer he wants. The Minister must, however, address the question, and I think he did.

State Services Commissioner—Inquiry into Environment Ministry Appointment

9. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of State Services: Has Dr Mark Prebble completed his investigation into the public service recruitment and employment of Madeleine Setchell; if not, when is the investigation expected to be completed and the report made public?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): No; I am advised by the State Services Commissioner that the inquiry is not yet concluded and a completion date is yet to be determined.

Hon Bill English: Will the report be released by the Minister, or by Dr Mark Prebble who has an independent statutory responsibility for the investigation and who is a subject of the investigation, or by the independent investigator Dr Hunn?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I believe it will be released by Dr Prebble.

Hon Bill English: Will the Ministry for the Environment release the Auditor-General’s report into how the ministry handled conflicts of interest; if so, when?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I suggest the member direct that to the Minister for the Environment. It is not an issue on which I have an answer for him.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that on 2 July the Ministry for the Environment management team agreed to set up a register of interests for staff including “any relationship which may exist between partners or family and political groups” and is that register still intact?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I am Minister of State Services; I am not responsible for the Minister for the Environment. I do believe that there was a suggestion that such a register should be set up. However I am not sure whether it is in place and the member might like to direct his questions to the correct Minister.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister of State Services telling the House that she does not know whether the Ministry for the Environment has set up a register of interests that requires all of its staff to declare any relationships that may exist between partners or family members and political groups; if she does not know, is not that gross irresponsibility when this has been such a controversial issue?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I do not believe it is, because the Minister of State Services does not go around directing chief executives of other departments as to how they should manage their departments. I suspect that if the Minister did, the member would be the first to complain about it.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister of State Services support a register of interests that, as agreed by the management of the Ministry for the Environment, requires its staff to declare any relationships that may exist between partners or family members and political groups?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I do not personally support such a register and I have said that publicly.

Hon Bill English: If the Minister does not support such a register, what steps will she take to ensure that a Government department that has agreed to set one up takes it apart and does not ask its staff whether they have any relationships that exist between partners or family members and political groups; what is she going to do about such a register?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I will be taking no steps. It will be a decision that is made by the chief executive. I do not direct the chief executives of other departments. If the State Services Commissioner wishes to raise that, then he is perfectly entitled to. It is not my role to go around telling chief executives how to run their departments.

Hon Bill English: Is the Government so confused over this issue that despite the fact that the Minister of State Services is opposed to the register, the fact that the Prime Minister has said she is opposed to such a register, which requires public servants to declare any family members who may have a connection to any political group, and the fact that the New Zealand Public Service Association Inc has said it is opposed to it, there may well be one such register in the Ministry for the Environment and that she is not going to do anything about it?

Hon ANNETTE KING: That is correct. We still run in this country a democracy. We still have in this country the ability for chief executives of Government departments to run their own affairs as long as it is within the law and is proper. I do note, however, that that is the same party that objected to its members of Parliament giving their personal information about what issues and assets they hold, unlike the rest of this Parliament, which was quite happy to be open and transparent about the issues and our business. I think there is a little bit of a double standard going on here.

Hon Bill English: I seek leave to table the minutes of a Ministry for the Environment group leaders meeting, which agrees to a register of interests that includes the political affiliations—

Leave granted.

Hon Bill English: —of family members of public servants.

Madam SPEAKER: Members have already decided. All members have to do is identify the document. The document was clearly identified. Members do not give a speech relating to the document.

Aircraft and Equipment—Sale Proceeds

10. HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Defence: What will the net return to the New Zealand taxpayer be, as at today, under the terms of the current sale offer when all Skyhawk and Aermacchi aircraft and ancillary equipment are sold, after all expenses including fixed, variable and cost-of-sales items are taken into account?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): A heads of agreement was signed with Tactical Air Services for the sale of the aircraft in September 2005, conditional on the approval of the United States Department of State. For reasons not attributable to nor under the control of New Zealand, Tactical Air Services has not yet received that approval. Unless and until that occurs it is not possible to calculate the net return.

Heather Roy: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question asked what the net return would be as at today, with costs being calculated today. It was a very specific question. The Minister has had a good deal of time to investigate the answer. Any Minister worth his or her salt would have a business plan that would look at that before—

Madam SPEAKER: As the member well knows, members cannot require specific answers to questions. Ministers have to address the question, and in this instance the Minister did actually address the question.

Heather Roy: When he responded to question for written answer No. 8841 in 2006 by saying that the Skyhawks would be kept at a level to enable operational regeneration by the purchaser, did he mean that all required aircraft consumables and rotables would be fitted to the aircraft; and did the previous Minister of Defence Mr Burton go so far as to sign up to provide additional spares for the fleet as well; if so, is not the cost of this almost as much as the entire sale price?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I am not sure that the member’s question made a lot of sense. The spares do have an accounting value of nil, and, obviously, all the spares would be sold with the aircraft, which are being turned over once a year but are not being kept in a flying state.

H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister tell the House what the cost was of operating the air combat wing and what the cost would have been of retaining it?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The monthly cost of operating the air combat wing was approximately $16 million, or around $200 million a year. It might interest the House to know that the total value of the aircraft is much less than the cost of operating them for 1 year. The cost of retaining an air combat wing would have required a capital investment of over a billion dollars, and to operate them would have required an increase in the operating baseline costs of about $1.2 billion over 10 years. That is probably why the National Party has done a total flip-flop and now reversed its position of wanting to retain an air combat wing. Its unreconstructed branch in the ACT party, however, still has that funny delusion.

Dr Wayne Mapp: What progress has the Minister made since his visit to the United States in May of this year—where he apparently has very good relationships—towards getting State Department approval for the sale, or will this just go on, and on and will it be the case that, as the Prime Minister says, the aircraft will be simply of interest to “the odd collector”, which she stated last month?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The progress that was made was that I was able to draw to the attention of both the State Department and the Department of Defense the fact that there was a problem. They were able to give an explanation and an expression of regret. The failure to give approval had nothing to do with New Zealand but everything to do with matters between it and Tactical Air Services. In respect of the Prime Minister’s comment, the A4s—the Skyhawks—are, of course, very old aircraft with a limited value. The Aermacchi, however, do have a greater actual value, and if this deal does not go through—and the deal involves the sale of both sets of aircraft—then the Aermacchi would probably be sold separately. They are in flying order.

Heather Roy: How much longer must the air force suffer loss of operational budget by having to maintain the Skyhawks and Aermacchis, and when the sale finally goes through, as he insists it will, can the air force expect fair and reasonable recompense for its interest-free lending to the Government for this bungled sale?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I do not know where to begin answering the total misstatements, inaccuracies, and untruths in that statement. Let me remind the member of what I said before. It costs about $130,000 a month to maintain these aircraft. When they were operating we were spending $16 million a month. The ACT party apparently wants to spend several billion dollars on an air combat wing but promises to halve the tax people are paying, and ACT has never explained the discrepancy in those two stances, which are totally inconsistent.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I seek leave to table a statement in the Dominion Post of August this year, where the Prime Minister says—

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

Crown Minerals—Confidence

11. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) to the Associate Minister of Energy: Does he have confidence in Crown Minerals; if so, why?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy): Once again, the answer is yes, but there is always room for improvement.

Chris Auchinvole: When the Minister said in answer to a question last Wednesday that Macdonald Investments “took the very unusual step of going from an exploratory permit directly into mining”, what did he mean by “unusual”, given this is a natural progression if a commercial discovery has been made?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: In the context of the implied allegations made by the member at the time it was an unusual step, in that Macdonald Investments had not completed the exploration phase—this was the whole purpose of the member’s questions last week. MacDonald Investments took the unusual step, instead of completing its obligations under its exploration permit, of determining it would rather go straight into mining, which, of course, is good for the company, good for employment in the area, and good for the West Coast.

Hon Marian Hobbs: Has the Minister seen any reports regarding the role of coal in New Zealand’s future electricity generation?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: As a matter of fact, I have. The first report is from National’s associate energy spokesperson, Chris Auchinvole, and states: “Coal will play a major role in New Zealand’s future power generation.” The second report is from National leader John Key, and states that National will have a policy that encourages climate-friendly choices like windmills, hydro power and tree planting, and reduces the desire for climate-unfriendly behaviours like burning coal. This is yet another example of National’s MPs saying one thing, and their leader saying something that is totally the opposite.

Chris Auchinvole: Can the Minister confirm that the company Macdonald Investments has not made or declared an actual commercial discovery on the West Coast?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: Any actual, or usable, commercial discovery has to be determined by the operation or company making that discovery. It is the company’s judgment, not mine. MacDonald Investments has decided that it has made a discovery to the extent that it wants to invest in mining. I cannot see what the member is complaining about.

Chris Auchinvole: Did the Minister receive any advice from Crown Minerals other than the selected information he tabled last week; if so, did any of that advice propose an alternative recommendation to Macdonald Investments being granted a 40-year mining permit?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I am not sure where the member is getting his information from in regard to this matter, but—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just answer the question.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I am very happy to answer the question, if Nick Smith would be courteous enough to allow me to do so. The original advice from Crown Minerals in regard to the permit was that the company had not completed the obligations of the exploration permit. My decision—as provided for in section 38, I think, of the Crown Minerals Act—is a determination based on what the company put forward to Crown Minerals. It put forward a proposal that instead of being required to complete its obligations and drill—as the member seems to want—a well in an area that it then knew would not have produced anything, it wanted to move straight into mining a drill in a much better location. I say: “Good on them!”.

Chris Auchinvole: Can the Minister tell the House what operations Macdonald Investments has on the ground on the West Coast following its years of exploration and the granting of this significant mining permit, other than a couple of wells pumping water, a shipping container, and a bicycle? [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please address the question.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I am very happy to, Madam Speaker, if I am able to. The advice from Crown Minerals was to accept the offer made by Macdonald Investments to mine. I am not sure what operations Macdonald Investments has on the ground on the West Coast; I have never visited and have never talked to the company. The member lives in the area, so perhaps he might.

Chris Auchinvole: I seek leave to table two photographs of Macdonald Investments’ wells, which produce less gas on a daily basis—

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

Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table a page from today’s website of the National Party, in which it says, under the photograph of John Key, that National members support the Marsden B upgrade—

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

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I seek leave—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Members must remember that points of order are heard in silence.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I seek leave to table the only known media comment on Chris Auchinvole as the Opposition associate spokesperson on energy, which states—

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

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I seek leave to table a speech made by Mr John Key, leader of the National Party, entitled “50 by 50: New Zealand’s climate change target”—

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. [Interruption] If members want to have a conversation, would they please take it outside. It is very difficult for me to hear members from their own parties.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was surprised that the member’s leave was denied by his own members, so we will again seek clarification—

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, as the member knows.

Pacific People—Economic Potential

12. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs: What steps is the Government taking to grow the economic potential of New Zealand’s Pacific people?

Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Associate Minister of Pacific Island Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs: Recently, the Labour-led Government launched two new plans aimed at boosting the economic potential and prosperity of Pacific peoples in New Zealand. These plans involve a partnership with 25 Government agencies, tertiary education providers, and the private sector. The Pacific Economic Action Plan and the Pacific Women’s Economic Development Plan focus on key areas for real action, including education; workforce development; business development; creative, emerging, and growth industries; entrepreneurial culture; and leadership.

Hon Mark Gosche: What specifically is being done to lift the economic potential and prosperity of Pacific women?

Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN: The Pacific Women’s Economic Development Plan focuses on key actions and milestones in the four areas of education, workforce development, business development, and leadership. The aim is to boost the economic potential of our Pacific women through a series of actions. Examples include a mental programme for top Pacific tertiary achievers; practical community training to upskill Pacific women workers to move out of traditional jobs, such as cleaning; and proactive support and seminars for Pacific women to start and to develop new businesses.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Why are these plans to grow the economic potential of New Zealand’s Pacific people so necessary?

Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN: Our Pacific people have made real gains under this Labour-led Government—there are more jobs, less unemployment, cheaper doctors’ visits, more opportunities, higher educational achievement, better housing, and more financial support today than under the National Government of the 1990s, when our Pacific people suffered badly. We have made huge progress, and we can do more. Our Pacific people, especially our women, are under-represented in leadership roles, business ownership, income levels, and tertiary education. These plans aim to build on our achievements to date, and use smart practical actions to drive our Pacific people and Pacific women towards full economic participation and success.

John Hayes: I seek leave to table an email trail prepared by Pacific academics, responding to the Government’s latest Pacific thought leaders conference.

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

ENDS

© Scoop Media