Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7621] 
Questions to Ministers 
Carbon Neutrality—Government Agencies 
1. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: How do the estimates tabled in the House by the Minister of Finance on Tuesday showing carbon footprints of the first six Government agencies to go carbon neutral compare to the projected deficit New Zealand faces during the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and the carbon emissions from current deforestation? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 The estimated cost for carbon neutrality in the first six Government departments to be committed to carbon neutrality is $5 million. Of course the emission reduction and offsets in these Government departments show that carbon neutrality is an achievable goal. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the reason the Minister did not give a straight answer to my original question the fact that official figures show that the six carbon-neutral public services would save just 13000 tonnes whereas New Zealand faces a 40 million tonne carbon deficit under the Kyoto Protocol and we are losing 8 million tonnes a year in deforestation—that is the numbers are so embarrassing they make the Government’s climate change policies a joke? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The proposals to advance towards carbon neutrality in the public sector are of course unrelated to rates of deforestation. I have no doubt that the Government’s preferred policy option in respect of controlling deforestation—through a deforestation “cap and trade” scheme—would be effective to limit and reduce deforestation. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Do forest owners have a property right to carbon credits for carbon stored by previously planted trees as asserted in deforestation proposals put forward by a Mr Matthew Hooton—whom I think was extensively mentioned in  
The Hollow Men 
—on behalf of lobbyist Roger Dickie? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Plainly no. There is no property right for carbon credits just as emitters have no property liability for their existing carbon emissions. If foresters had a property right then farmers and other New Zealanders would already have a property liability for their car emissions or their cows. Plainly they do not. This is actually one thing that Labour and National agree on. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister agree that industry and society would be thrown into chaos if the Government were to take an extreme view on the time frame for achieving carbon-neutral targets such as Nick Smith seems to be proposing? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Absolutely. I agree that to charge towards carbon neutrality in a short number of years would be an unattainable goal except— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Tell the Prime Minister! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No the Prime Minister agrees with that and has never said anything different. The ambition of carbon neutrality is a realistic goal as shown by what can be achieved in these first six Government departments. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How does the carbon saving from these six departments which the Minister has just stated to be $5 million in 2012 compare in 2012 terms with the expected savings that would have occurred with the price on carbon if the Government’s carbon charge—decided in 2002—had not been abandoned in December 2005? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: But a fraction of those savings which from memory were calculated to total 41 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. That is just from memory and it is a while since I looked at those figures. The member could correct me if I am wrong. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does it not illustrate that the Prime Minister’s opening statement to Parliament on sustainability was a load of hog when she proudly boasts of a new policy of making Treasury carbon neutral when figures show it will make a difference of 2 tonnes per day but when she makes no mention of deforestation that is causing carbon loss of 22000 tonnes per day; and given these figures does he not accept that halting the massive deforestation going on in New Zealand right now should be the No. 1 climate change priority? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I have long been clear that halting growing rates of deforestation is very important in terms of climate change policy. The “cap and trade” system that the Government has proposed is one of the options and indeed some of the other options would also achieve that outcome. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has the Minister perceived any inconsistency between claims now being made that the Government is doing too little about climate change and the assertion that climate change is a “complete and utter hoax”; a statement made by John Key in this House just 18 months ago? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Thankfully Phil Goff is not responsible for the statements of National’s leader John Key. Furthermore the quote is completely incorrect and wrong. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the Minister would address the first part of the question. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I do and I recall contrasting statements by other members in this House including Mr Key who did in fact say to this House that he was personally unconvinced and thought the whole thing was a hoax. He subsequently went on to say that he believed in climate change. It is of course permissible for him to change his mind but he went on to say he believed in climate change and always had. One of those two statements has to be incorrect. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can he assure the House that having expensive Treasury bureaucrats running around ensuring they are carbon neutral is the best contribution they can make to climate change policy when their carbon footprint is so minuscule; would not their time be better spent on implementing a credible policy like National’s tradable emissions permit system that will actually address the major emissions that are causing New Zealand’s climate change issues? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The first point to be made there is that a number of steps—a large number of steps—need to be taken to advance towards carbon neutrality. Making light of the steps that are starting to be taken in the Government sector is with respect to the member heading in the wrong direction. The Government’s leadership in this area in terms of our own purchasing patterns has the ability to influence more than just the emissions in the Government sector but lead to more sustainable practices across the economy. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will our carbon-neutral Prime Minister be opening the new E3P generator in the Waikato this month given that today she has found time to open the new Awapuni generator in Palmerston North noting that the E3P generator is 385 times bigger that the emissions savings in a year from the environmentally friendly Awapuni generator will be gobbled up in a single day of E3P’s operation and that the Government is the funder and guarantor of E3P whereas Awapuni is being financed by the Austrian Government and the Palmerston North City Council or is the Prime Minister so possessed by her spin machine’s cover-up of the Government’s appalling record on climate change that she will go wherever a photo opportunity will give her the excuse? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In fact E3P is likely to back off Huntly and reduce and lower emissions. In respect of the Awapuni project of course that project was caused by Government climate change policy and probably would not have happened without it. The generator was brought into being because of the Government’s project to reduce emissions and its allocating carbon credits to that environmentally friendly power project. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister aware that his Government’s policy proposals regarding forestry are causing a huge increase in deforestation and that at Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry public meetings in Gisborne Hamilton Nelson and yesterday Hawke’s Bay his forestry policies were overwhelmingly rejected; and why does he not abandon the stupid policies now so that there might be some trees standing when National becomes the Government next year? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is true that Roger Dickie and other people assert that deforestation is caused by our unwillingness to devolve carbon credits to other forests planted prior to 1990. It is hard to see the linkage; I cannot see the linkage. It is notable that both major parties in this Parliament including Nick Smith’s own do not favour the devolution of carbon credits to previously planted forestries. They reject the property rights - based argument. There is no theft of carbon credits and if carbon credits were property rights for existing forests then already others would have liabilities for their emissions in agriculture and transport—and plainly they do not. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Given the challenge to the accuracy of my quoting of John Key I seek the leave of the House to table a quote from  
Hansard 
 dated 10 May 2005 where John Key states: “This is a complete and utter hoax if I may say so.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table a document that is an extract from National’s 2005 climate change policy and states that National would use New Zealand’s forest credits to offset emissions in the first commitment period—in other words it would not devolve them to foresters. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Given the excitement that Phil Goff showed he asserted that John Key said that climate change was a hoax. He did not. If Mr Goff were to table the previous sentence he would see that the reference was in respect of Kyoto. I seek leave to table the full  
Hansard 
 and not just the sentence that suits the misleading Mr Goff. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand the point of order. I ask members though when they make points of order not to make speeches and to actually stick to the point. 
Document not tabled. 
KiwiSaver Scheme—Reports 
2.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What recent reports has he received on support for KiwiSaver? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Apart from the enthusiastic support of the member I have received reports of support from a range of sectors including from AXA whose retirement survey found that 59 percent of New Zealanders who know about KiwiSaver believe that it will lead to an increase in their retirement savings. I have also seen reports from the country’s largest union the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union saying that it is prepared to include employer contributions to KiwiSaver as part of rather than in addition to its wage claims. 
Shane Jones 
: What alternative approaches has he seen to encourage savings in New Zealand? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As we have just been listening to one hand clapping—I have seen a very wide range from compulsion to extraordinary claims from the likes of the Business Roundtable that we do not have a savings problem at all. The one silent voice is that of the National Party which opposes KiwiSaver but has absolutely no alternative. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Has the Minister seen recent media reports suggesting that KiwiSaver could be extended to all current employees; if so has the Government given any thought to that suggestion and to the timing and practicalities involved? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: KiwiSaver will of course be available to all employees; the question is whether they will be compelled to join. It is worth remembering that in Australia compulsion was introduced by way of an employer levy of 9 percent of wages in an era of high inflation and as part of a centralised wage bargain - imposed wage tax and superannuation trade-off. Such a trade-off could not be achieved in New Zealand under conditions of relatively low inflation and decentralised wage bargaining. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response but the reports I was referring to actually suggested simply automatic enrolment not compulsion with the same right to opt out as will be given to all people starting a job for the first time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I will just say that I have not seen that report; if what the member means is a report that we immediately enrol everybody as an opt-out I think that the administration would be something we could not possibly gear up for by 1 July given the number of people involved. The advantage of phasing it in the way that we have is that anybody can opt in but all new employees are automatically enrolled—that is some 700000 people a year who are new employees. 
Health Services—Value for Money 
3.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he believe he is getting value for money in health; if so where? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 We are getting better value for money but further improvement is always sought. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has he seen reports that a Te Kuiti primary health organisation practice is offering a cash bounty for people to enrol in the primary health organisation—inducements of $20 cash per person or $50 cash per family and a prize draw of Warehouse vouchers—and is he satisfied that offering cash for clients is an ethical way of accessing public health subsidies? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: My answer may be a little longer if I may Madam Speaker. The member will be aware that this health clinic has had longstanding financial and managerial problems; that it is under new management; and that with the Waikato District Health Board a marketing plan is in place to increase enrolments. The marketing plan involves many things—newsletters public activities open days media publicity and on it goes. Clearly the health clinic went a step too far with its cash prizes. The district health board has already told it so—along with the Waikato primary health organisation I would expect—and it will not do it again. There are two reasons to increase enrolments. The first is the viability of the health clinic. The second is as important. This part of the King Country has about 3000 people who are not enrolled with anyone. That is out of a population of only 19000. That is a very high proportion and lots of people are intent on fixing it. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: That’s not right. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes it is right. 
Tariana Turia 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker tenatatou te Whare. Does the Minister believe he is getting value for money when it is alleged that patients normally required to stay overnight following surgery at Wanganui Hospital are discharged to motels where family or health service providers are expected to care for them and return them to the hospital in the morning for post-operative examinations; and how safe is that practice? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not sure what the value for money of it is nor am I sure of the safety of it but I would be very happy to have the member raise the issue with me privately if she wishes. I am going to Wanganui in the next few weeks I think. 
Ann Hartley 
: Does the Minister know how this health clinic raised the prize money? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I do. The prize money was raised at the local pig hunt where volunteers ran a canteen and sold raffles. Last night Mr Ryall rushed on to national television to breathlessly advise that the taxpayer would be upset. The taxpayer did not pay. Yet again he makes it up. Yet again he is wrong. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Can the Minister confirm that a significant amount of the increased health sector spending has gone towards paying nurses adequately in order to retain their skills here in New Zealand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I can and as a result recruitment and retention of nurses in the New Zealand health sector has improved significantly. I am very proud of the pay increase to the New Zealand nurses who work for district health boards and I thank them for their ongoing efforts. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How is it that the Government’s policy rules allow primary health organisations or their practices to offer patients a cash bounty that gives the primary health organisation hundreds of dollars in taxpayers’ money for every person it has paid $20 or $50 to which another primary health organisation has labelled discount marketing of health care? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: This is a fast-moving portfolio. The member is not aware apparently that a stopper was put on that weeks ago. 
Hon Member 
: No. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes. Let me tell the member something else. Yesterday I had the opportunity or the pleasure of spending part of the day in my own electorate of Dunedin. There I found the Otago University health centre offering an iPod for registration. I doubt that the member would consider that unethical and I wonder whether I might say carefully whether that is because it involves a very different demographic. 
Ann Hartley 
: What value are New Zealanders getting from additional primary-care funding? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: For mainstream New Zealanders—all of us—we are getting value for money from our primary health care strategy now. By and large what has happened is that a young family’s annual cost of going to a general practitioner has fallen from about $750 per year on average to about $200. An older couple who on average used to pay about $780 year now pay about $340 a year—something to be proud of I would say. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why as this case demonstrates does not he as Minister apply proper systems to the administration of this funding in the first place instead of spending days with his mop and bucket tidying up yet another mess he has created in the public health system? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member continues to feign outrage. He should reflect on the fact that 94 percent of the enrolees in this practice are Maori Pacific Island and/or lowest deprivation profile. Some politicians use the word “underclass” to describe such a population and rush towards them with muesli bars. I would say that the member cannot have it both ways. Either his party has discovered what it calls an underclass and wants to brand itself as caring or his party is prepared to take a swipe at those who are committed to the delivery of better health services to the so-called underclass whenever the opportunity arises. He cannot have it both ways. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: So is the Minister saying it is OK for a Maori primary health organisation to offer these sorts of inducements? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member did not listen to my answer to his first supplementary question. It is not OK. It has been stopped. It ain’t gonna happen again. 
Cluster Bombs—Lebanon 
4.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control 
: What actions have been taken by the Government to respond to the loss of lives and livelihood caused by the use of cluster munitions in Lebanon? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control) 
: 
 Today New Zealand will be co-chairing a conference in Norway which we hope will build momentum towards the international adoption of a legally binding instrument to constrain the use of cluster munitions. New Zealand is playing a leading role at that conference which will have 45 countries and seven international agencies attending. I was also privileged a fortnight ago to farewell a New Zealand Defence Force contingent that is now working in the Lebanon to locate map and destroy cluster munitions and unexploded ordinance. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Why is this conference being held outside of the formal UN process and what does it hope to achieve? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The formal United Nations review conference on conventional weapons last year regrettably failed to agree on a mandate to launch negotiations to restrict cluster munitions use. That was in our view an unacceptable outcome. We have therefore embarked on the alternative route of mobilising support to limit the use of cluster munitions. We hope this conference will provide a roadmap towards strengthening the current international humanitarian law to restrict the use and design of those munitions and in fact New Zealand itself is considering holding a further conference after this one to ensure that that momentum keeps on towards that goal. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What level of contribution is New Zealand making on the ground in Lebanon to deal with cluster munitions which harm so many hundreds of thousands of young people? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Regrettably it is young people who are disproportionately the victims of the cluster munitions which number something like 1.4 million on the ground in south Lebanon. As part of our contribution towards that we are sending two 10-person explosive ordinance teams that will be based at Tyre in southern Lebanon. They will be working with the United Nations mine coordination centre. The first team is now deployed. It is working in the area where there is the greatest concentration of those munitions. It consists of five people from the Navy and five surveyors from the Army who will locate and destroy cluster munitions and help people get their lives back together. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If the Minister is as concerned about this issue as he should be has he had any discussions with the Minister responsible for the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to ensure that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund does not invest in companies or is not an investor in a company that makes the very cluster bombs he is so outraged about? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have indeed had discussions with the Minister. As the member may well be aware the Guardians of the New Zealand Superannuation have now divested from I think four companies that were manufacturing landmines and one that was dealing in whale meat. As the member also knows that board quite properly operates at arm’s length from political control—and the member voted for the clause in the bill that required that. The guardians have become members of the United Nations Global Compact which sets out the requirements for proper investment and proper activity for a good corporate citizen. It is also a founding member of the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment. It is now looking at areas beyond the international requirements such as nuclear weapons to look at whether it is appropriate that New Zealand has any investment in firms dealing with those areas. There will also be a member’s bill before the House. I look forward to seeing how the member votes on it. 
Taito Phillip Field—Immigration Associate Minister 
5.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: When Taito Phillip Field met with the Associate Minister Damien O’Connor on 17 May 2005 to discuss the immigration case of Sunan Siriwan was the Associate Minister’s private secretary present at that meeting when the Siriwan case was discussed? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 That has long been a matter of the public record. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Ministers are supposed to give an answer—if it can be given—to enhance the public interest in such cases. For him to simply say it is a matter of public record then sit down is unacceptable. Surely he could give a simple “Yes” or “No” or has this whole case become so messy that the Government just does not know how to answer any question about it? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I think the member is right; the Minister could have been more helpful in his reply though he did address the question. So I would ask the Minister to expand on his reply please. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The answer to the member’s question is set out in the Ingram inquiry report. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Taito Phillip Field the following day 18 May 2005 having written to the then Associate Minister Damien O’Connor: “As a result of my representations on behalf of Mr Siriwan you have decided”—I repeat “decided”—“that you would consider favourably a two year work permit to allow him to re-enter New Zealand from Apia Samoa” and “You further decided that a Special Direction will”—I repeat “will”—“be granted to cancel the 5 year penalty for his spouse” did the Associate Minister’s private secretary see that letter; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Although I am not responsible for the internal workings of the offices of former Ministers including the office of that former Associate Minister I am advised that the department did not accept Taito Phillip Field’s letter’s version of what happened at that meeting. Quite correctly the department awaited formal notification from the Associate Minister of the later decision that he subsequently made. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Were such decisions to “consider favourably a two year work permit to allow [Mr Siriwan] to re-renter New Zealand from Apia Samoa” and to make a special direction “to cancel the 5 year penalty for his spouse” made at the meeting on 17 May 2005 between Taito Phillip Field the then Associate Minister Damien O’Connor and the Associate Minister’s private secretary Ms Nicola Scotland? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Although the Ingram inquiry report appears to confirm that the case was discussed the decision was not made by the then Associate Minister until some weeks later. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that when Mrs Field presented Taito Phillip Field’s letter detailing the Minister’s alleged decisions to the Apia branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service the branch manager in Apia faxed the group manager of service international in Wellington the same day asking “whether our [Associate] Minister was aware of the information we have received … regarding these Thai nationals when he apparently made these decisions following discussions with Hon Taito Philip Field.” and is it correct that the group manager of service international phoned the then Associate Minister’s office the same day to warn him and spoke to the Associate Minister’s private secretary? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No and no. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would hate to see the Minister risk misleading the House. I would invite him to reconsider his answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. The Minister has given his answer; he will take responsibility for it. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With due respect I take exception to the slight on my integrity implied by that member’s questions—as he has done for the past 17 months. I make reference to Standing Order 116 and the Speakers’ rulings on pages 38 and 39. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order unless in fact the member is seeking leave to make a personal explanation. Is the member seeking leave to make a personal explanation? 
Taito Phillip Field 
: Yes. I take exception that in the past 17 months that member has continually made allegations about me in this House in question time. I want to make it clear to him that in fact a lot of the allegations he has made in this House are quite untrue and have reflected badly on my integrity. If that member has any scrap of evidence to back up the allegations he has been making for that lengthy period of time I invite him to come out of his closet and make those allegations outside this House. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does the Minister consider it plausible that the then Associate Minister’s private secretary—who was aware that 2 months earlier the Hon Damien O’Connor had declined visas for both Sunan Siriwan and his partner Ms Phanngarm; who was present at the crucial meeting on 17 May; and who knew that Taito Phillip Field had misrepresented the outcome of that meeting in his letter of 18 May—would ignore a logged phone call from the head of service international only a few days later telling her of Mr Field’s conflict of interest over the same Sunan Siriwan in Samoa and not say anything to her Minister? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: That has for a long time been recorded as the conclusion of the Ingram inquiry. Crucial to that judgment is the fact that—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. One presumes from the fact that the member opposite has asked some 400 questions on this matter that he would still like to hear the answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister continue please. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister has a point. Let the Minister address the question so that we all can hear it. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I was going on to say that I imagine that among factors that Dr Ingram QC would have taken into account are the facts that the meeting with Taito Phillip Field in question happened on 17 May and that the first alleged passage of specific information about Sunan Siriwan to the private secretary did not occur until some 3 weeks later on 9 June. 
Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Policy 
6.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by his statement that “86000 children will definitely get 20 free hours under Labour”; if so in what time frame will this be achieved? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Education 
: Yes. Based on current enrolments of 3 and 4-year-olds in teacher-led early childhood centres Labour’s policy of 20 free hours will definitely be available for up to 92000 children—more than 86000—from 1 July. Further the Minister stands by his statement made prior to the last election that 86000 children will be worse off under National’s plan to axe the 20 hours’ free policy. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister understand why parents are confused about how many kids will actually receive 20 hours’ free early childhood education when he told them pre-election that 92000 children would “definitely get 20 hours under Labour” then said “up to 92000 will get 20 free hours” and only yesterday said “potentially 92000 children will get 20 free hours”; which is it because there is a world of difference in those statements? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I can understand anyone’s confusion if he or she listened to that member. There is no confusion in knowing that every single child would be worse off under a National-led Government. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Minister sometimes think as he works his way through the complexities of the 20 hours’ free education policy—particularly with regard to the for-profit sector—that he cannot help but conclude he was thrown a huge hospital pass by his predecessor Trevor Mallard? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No because any opportunity to improve access to early childhood education which is what our Government is committed to is worthwhile for the engagement with that part of the sector. 
Dianne Yates 
: Has the Minister received any information about how many 3 and 4-year-olds would receive 20 hours’ free early childhood education under a National Government? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I have. The answer is not one single child. The National Party’s policy as set out clearly on its website is to scrap 20 hours’ free early childhood education. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to point out that the Minister had no ministerial responsibility in the context of the question asked but I realise that to do so would be a waste of time. The reality is that one cannot scrap a policy that cannot be implemented. There is nothing for National to scrap because Labour is not doing anything. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister answer the question that every parent wants to know the answer to which is whether it will be that 92000 children will “definitely get 20 hours under Labour” that “up to 92000 will get 20 free hours” or as the Minister said yesterday “potentially 92000 children will get 20 free hours”—which is it? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Actually “up to” and “potentially” mean exactly the same thing. I clarify for the member who seems to be the only confused person in the country that Labour’s 20 hours’ free policy will be available to 3 and 4-year-olds in all teacher-led early childhood education centres from 1 July this year. 
Katherine Rich 
: When some centres are planning to charge top-up donations which will basically be compulsory fees if parents want their kids to be in that centre how can 20 hours’ free education be free if they are not free or is that just loony Labour Government logic? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: This has been explained to the member previously but I will try to do so once more because she clearly remains confused. The key rule is that parents cannot be charged for 20 hours’ free early childhood education. That is the key part of the meaning of “free”. 
Paula Bennett 
: What does the Minister say to centres that need to insist on a voluntary parental payment just to cover costs and are very concerned that these payments do not provide enough security of income to run a centre? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I would say to those centres that they would be very very unlikely to get any increased funding from a National Government as would parents who would not gain one scrap because not one single child would have any free early childhood education under that member’s policy. The subsidy will cover all operating costs including teachers’ salaries administrations costs professional services utilities capital and property costs such as rent or mortgage and the repayment and replacement of assets. 
Paula Bennett 
: When will the Minister admit to parents that 20 hours’ free early childhood education was simply a slogan and that parents will need to top up this subsidy with a so-called voluntary payment? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Not at all because it is just not true—wrong again. 
Algerian Refugee—Security Risk Certificate 
7.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: To what extent if any did the police threat assessment of Ahmed Zaoui an assessment criticised as “not well considered nor well constructed” in a 9 January 2007 report by Judge Ian Borrin of the Police Complaints Authority contribute to the Minister’s decision to rely on a security risk certificate applying to Algerian refugee Ahmed Zaoui? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I was of course not privy to the briefing to the former Minister of Immigration by the Director of Security before the Minister’s decision to rely upon the security risk certificate. However I am advised that the police play no role in the statutory briefing process. In accordance with section 114E(3) of the Immigration Act 1987 the contents of that briefing must remain confidential. 
Keith Locke 
: Was it because the Minister in some way relied on the flawed police threat assessment against Mr Zaoui which falsely claimed that he was a senior member of the terrorist GIA group that the Minister’s department actually supported Mr Zaoui spending 10 months in solitary confinement in Paremoremo prison? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: My first answer applies equally to the second question. 
Keith Locke 
: In what way would the presence in New Zealand of Leila Zaoui and her four children prejudice the current review of the security risk certificate and why is the Minister so heartless in not allowing the family to be reunited at least while the very long-drawn-out review of Mr Zaoui’s status is completed and the Minister makes a decision? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is important that because there is a chance that the substantive decision in respect of Mr Zaoui will later come to my desk I do not now pre-empt the substance of that decision. Therefore I must live with the possibility of the perception of heartlessness in order to ensure that that decision is not prejudiced. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please lower the level of chatter. It is very difficult to hear members sometimes. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question specifically asked in what way the presence of Leila Zaoui and her children would prejudice the Minister’s decision. He did not answer how it would prejudice the decision he talked about when giving his answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister did in the context address the question. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister confirm that when a security risk certificate is issued against a suspected terrorist he has no choice but to rely on that advice and that he has no influence over Ahmed Zaoui’s fate until the decision regarding the security risk certificate is reached by the SIS—unlike Mr Zaoui who does have a choice: he can seek assistance with documentation get on a plane and go tomorrow? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I would not characterise the obligations on this Minister in the way that the member has just done. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is a most unsatisfactory answer. I asked the Minister a specific question about the procedure and the limitations controlling the procedure. I think the Minister should give this House an answer. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I cannot hear what members are saying. Would the Minister please expand on his answer. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: To be more direct the member was wrong. 
Keith Locke 
: How much incompetence and bungling from various State agencies particularly the police and the SIS will it take in this long-drawn-out affair of 4 years going on 5 years before the Minister lifts the security risk certificate against Mr Zaoui; has the Minister given any consideration to the fact that the inspector-general’s term expires in June—that is before the hearing is even due to begin—and has he any contingency planning about what to do in that circumstance? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Although I have no ministerial responsibility for the term of the inspector-general I have stated publicly previously that I share the concern of many New Zealanders that this process should be expedited as quickly as possible. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the Police Complaints Authority report dated 9 January 2007 which is very critical of the police’s role— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table an Amnesty International statement of 24 April 2006 explaining the secret detention and torture that goes on in Algeria today which makes it impossible for Mr Zaoui to return there. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We seek to be more specific about these things. Mr Locke has just asked whether he can table a document outlining secret torture. Well if it is such a secret how come he has a document on it? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member knows that is not a point of order; however it has provoked another one. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The document here which I think Mr Brownlee could read as it is easily available talks about detainees in secret detention and about being tortured—secret detention and torture I tell Mr Brownlee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Can we now move on? 
Keith Locke 
: I tried to table that document because there was a reference made by a member to Mr Zaoui being able to go home. I now seek leave to table from the  
New Zealand Herald  
of 9 February a statement where Mr Zaoui hotly disputes Mr Peter Brown’s assertion and says that he has no passport to enable him to return home. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Accident Compensation—Covered Publicity Campaign 
8.  
PANSY WONG (National) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: How much does the Covered publicity campaign currently being run by the Accident Compensation Corporation cost and is she supportive of its message? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 The Covered campaign designed to inform New Zealanders of their entitlements under the accident compensation scheme will cost $5.1 million over 4 years. The cost of this campaign represents 0.0012 percent of the $1.9 billion that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) spends assisting injured people per year. Broken down further it represents a cost of 7.75c per person per year. The cost of the campaign will be met out of ACC’s current communications budget and yes I am very supportive of the message. 
Pansy Wong 
: Does that mean the Minister agrees with this statement on the ACC website for the Covered campaign: “New Zealand is the only country where everyone is protected with this kind of injury cover—even if it was something you did that caused the injury.”; if so is that why she has not ruled out compensation for the previously convicted killer Graeme Burton? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes and no. Yes I support the message because it is factually correct. It is important that all people know that even if it is their own fault that they are injured they are entitled to receive accident compensation cover. I do not support despite that statement cover for people who have committed crimes such as that indicated by the member. In fact that was indicated in comments made at the time of the Graeme Burton murder by the chief operating officer Gerard McGreevy. I will quote from them to perfectly clarify the matter for the member who clearly did not read them: “While someone is imprisoned they are not entitled to any form of compensation from ACC apart from treatment for their injury. Any periodic ACC payments cease for the period of imprisonment and there is no eligibility for back payment.” I am sure that clarifies the issue for the member. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Why is ACC running the Covered campaign? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The reason ACC is running the Covered campaign is that research has shown that many people particularly Maori Pacific and Asian people do not have any understanding at all of the accident compensation scheme. As a publicly funded organisation ACC has a duty to inform all New Zealanders of their entitlements. Unlike the National Party which has been deceptive towards the public about its privatisation plans as demonstrated at the last election when details of its accident compensation policy were “deliberately kept out” our Government is proud of our world-class scheme and wants the public to be knowledgable about it and enjoy their full entitlement. 
Pansy Wong 
: Does that mean the Minister agrees with the ACC spokesman that while Graeme Burton is in prison he will not be entitled to compensation but afterwards he will be able to file for compensation; if that is the case how does she think the family of the late Mr Karl Kuchenbecker who was gunned down by Graeme Burton while he was on parole will feel when she will not rule out compensation full stop? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I explained to the member in answer to a previous supplementary question there is no eligibility for back payment. When Graeme Burton is released he is entitled to apply for lump-sum compensation and ACC rather than the Minister—as the member would find out if she would care to read the legislation for which she now has responsibility as Opposition spokesperson—must then apply to the District Court. I will read the particular reference: “for a declaration that such a payment would be repugnant to justice and therefore should not be made.” ACC has previously exercised its—not the Minister’s—statutory power in this regard. 
Pansy Wong 
: Will the Minister assure the family of the innocent victims of the saga of the parole fiasco that ACC will apply to the court to make sure or the Minister will do something to make sure that compensation categorically will not happen? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Tempting though it may be on many occasions I will not rise to the temptation of instructing the District Court on its response to any application. 
Pansy Wong 
: How does ACC justify the cost-effectiveness of this $5 million Covered campaign when it has rejected on the grounds of cost-effectiveness its own pilot study that shows that increasing the subsidy for a family doctor visit by $10 would increase by 3 percent the number of people in the target group who visit those doctors; how can the corporation justify and how does the Minister support the cost-effectiveness of this $5 million programme? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The member is confusing two very different incentives for ensuring that people have access to treatment and to cover. In addition to a comprehensive research programme aimed at finding out exactly what New Zealanders did know 5000 people—predominantly Maori Pacific and Asian people—took part in face-to-face interviews. During those people said they did not know they were entitled to accident compensation cover. Having education about the right to apply is quite different from having entitlement to go to the doctor. I have to add that it is a bit rich for that member to be promoting a higher level of subsidy for doctors when through her party’s entire 9 years of Government the only alteration it made to doctors’ subsidies was in 1992 when they were cut by 15 percent. 
Wellington City Council—Social Housing 
9.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What assistance is the Government providing to Wellington City Council to upgrade its social housing stock? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Today with the Mayor of Wellington Kerry Prendergast and my colleagues Annette King Mahara Okeroa Marian Hobbs and Charles Chauvel I announced a $220 million partnership with Wellington City Council to substantially upgrade its 2354 social housing units. In return the council has agreed to stay in social housing for 30 years to reinvest rental income back into the maintenance of its homes and to improve tenancy management. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What outcomes is the Government expecting from this investment? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Wellington City Council is the second-largest landlord in the region housing approximately 4000 elderly low-income or disadvantaged tenants—more than 11 percent of all rental housing in this city. Ensuring the supply of affordable quality housing is a priority issue the Government is progressing through its “families—young and old” theme. This contrasts sharply with the “hollow men” opposite who started selling State houses again—a policy Mr Key is so embarrassed about he runs for cover every time it comes up. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please keep the noise down. It is impossible for members to hear. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why have State and council housing waiting lists mushroomed year on year across the country since 2001 even though more houses have been provided; is it because Kiwis are poorer there is a growing underclass in New Zealand and fewer people can afford their own home? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members on the Government benches please keep their interventions down otherwise people will be leaving the Chamber. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: There are two simple and logical explanations. Firstly people can now afford State house rents because they pay income-related rents. Previously under the National Government they paid market rents. Secondly and just as important National sold off 13000 houses—not to tenants mostly but to speculators. If we still had those 13000 houses we would not have a waiting list. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Does the support given by Government to the Wellington City Council allow for that council to implement a rent-to-buy scheme of its housing stock; if not why not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Housing remains a need in all parts of New Zealand. This Government is committed to keeping social housing as part of that opportunity to provide affordable housing for people who still need to rent houses. Wellington City Council is following the same programme and I applaud it for that. 
Darren Hughes 
: Has the Government given assistance to any other councils around New Zealand to upgrade improve or build new social housing stock? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: In 2003 the Government established the Housing Innovation Fund to support social housing projects through partnerships with local authorities and not-for-profit organisations. As of 31 January 2007 loans and grants worth more than $38 million had been made with a further $14.5 million expected for this year. A very good example of that is the $5.2 million loaned to the Horowhenua District Council championed by that member that enabled the council to build 40 new pensioner flats and modernise 70 existing units in Levin Shannon and Foxton. I seek leave to table a document taken from  
The Hollow Men  
that states National would renew its 1990s programme of selling State houses to provide homeownership by the former leader Mr Brash. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Prime Minister's Statement 
10.  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister when she said in her prime ministerial statement of 13 February 2007 that: “The historical Treaty settlement process has considerable momentum.”; if so why? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Yes because the Prime Minister is correct. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: How can the process have momentum when the Government at a time when it expects a huge increase in Treaty claims has reduced inflation-adjusted funding to the Office of Treaty Settlements by almost half a million dollars? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The fact is that over the last four Budgets the Office of Treaty Settlements has been able to facilitate claims in greater numbers through the installation of a claims development team a new negotiations team that was established in 2003 and a policy strategy and legal team that was established in 2004. New initiative funding of $5.174 million was in last year’s Budget to further enhance its capability. The Office of Treaty Settlements has more negotiators than it had. I suggest to the member that the maths is self-evident. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: I will treat that as an address to the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It was an address to the question. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: That is why I did not raise a point of order. How can the process have momentum when over the 7 years the Government has been in office inflation-adjusted funding for the Waitangi Tribunal has increased by just $305000—or by an average of just over $43000 a year? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I suggest that if the member wants to put down a question to the Minister responsible for the Waitangi Tribunal he should do so. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Is it not true that there is momentum in the Treaty settlement process when both Treaty partners trust one another and have a positive attitude towards settling grievances; and by reference to Hauraki iwi will not the sale of Landcorp’s Whenuakite Station at Whitianga cause serious insult to Hauraki iwi and indeed slow the momentum of the settlement process? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I suggest that the record of negotiations in the last 2 years—three deeds of mandate have been recognised two terms of negotiations have been signed two agreements in principle have been signed two deeds of settlement have been initialled two deeds of settlement have been signed two settlement bills have been introduced and two settlement bills have been passed—suggests that there is indeed a momentum. As to the specific case of Hauraki which is not yet in negotiation the time and place for the Crown and mandated negotiators to discuss that matter is in face-to-face negotiation. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker kia ora tatou. In order that the considerable momentum of the historical Treaty settlement process can be maintained could the Minister indicate what the appropriate circumstances might be that would enable Landcorp properties to be used as redress for Ngati Kahu lands in the north and Ngati Hei lands in Hauraki that were stolen by the Crown; and similarly for the Raurimu and Taurewa blocks in the National Park area which are at present being considered by the Waitangi Tribunal? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Although I am not prepared to enter into discussion about specific negotiations—because the time and place for that is between mandated negotiators and Crown negotiators—the general principle would be that it is when no suitable holdings exist in order to make suitable redress offers to claimant groups. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Is it not true that there could be considerable momentum and goodwill created in Hauraki if Whenuakite Station were to be held by the Crown or a holding entity in order to preserve the status quo pending negotiation of the total Hauraki settlement and will the Minister consider this option? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am not clear whether the member is asking that question as an MP or as a barrister on behalf of a claimant as he has in the past but I suggest to the member— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was clearly a breach of the Standing Orders. The Minister should be pulled into line. That implied that the member asking the question was somehow under the influence or direction of persons outside of this House and as you well know that is quite inappropriate. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: If that was the impression gained I do apologise. That certainly was not my intent. I was simply drawing attention to the fact that I am aware of the member’s considerable career in representing various claimant groups. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As long as there was no such implication. Would the Minister please just address the substance of the question. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The critical thing is that the time and place to engage in a negotiation is when it is between mandated negotiators from that area and Crown negotiators. I have met recently with representatives of the area and when there is an opportunity for us to engage with mandated negotiators we will happily do so. 
Hone Harawira 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker kia ora tatou te Whare. What is the basis for this Labour Government now saying that the Crown’s policy is that Landcorp properties are generally not available for use in settlements given that Landcorp properties were generally available—in fact were specifically and deliberately available—for use in settlements during the reign of the National Government and given that there have been no publicly notifiable changes to the relevant legislation or regulation since that time? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Essentially as I indicated in answers yesterday in particular and to some extent today when there are as a first preference other easily available properties for redress the first option is to use those. It is not ruled out as I know that the member understands that under other circumstances such as when the tribunal orders it those properties may well come into play under resumption. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Is it not the truth of the matter that there has only ever been momentum in the Treaty settlement process when National has been in office as evidenced by the ongoing decline in funding for the Office of Treaty Settlements by this Government and the incompetent manner in which the Minister is dealing with Hauraki iwi over Whenuakite Station? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Whilst I have considerable regard for my predecessor the Hon Doug Graham—[ 
Interruption 
] one of my predecessors; of course the other I would not want to draw into the debate—and the work he did in this very difficult portfolio I have to say that the member is wrong. It seems the member does understand the cost of some things but the value of little. I repeat to the member that I cannot enter into a negotiation until there is a mandated negotiator to negotiate with. 
Zimbabwe Residence Policy—HIV/AIDS Waiver 
11.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: How many Zimbabweans as of 21 February 2007 have applied for residency under the Special Zimbabwe Residence Policy following the HIV/AIDS waiver announced on 30 August 2006 and how many of the remaining 800 who were eligible under the policy as at 30 August 2006 have yet to apply? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I am advised that the original estimate of 800 has been subsequently refined to 460. Of those as at the first week of February 2007—the most recent point for which data is available—approximately 134 eligible persons had yet to apply. 
Peter Brown 
: Can the Minister explain the discrepancy between his answer to a written question which stated that 85 of the 800 eligible Zimbabweans had applied as of 13 February 2007 and his media statement made on 15 February 2007 which stated that only 130 of the 800 had yet to apply—because now by downsizing the number he has added to the confusion? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I will be happy to check the exact basis of the two figures that the member quoted earlier. But I think the member—and all members of the House—would agree with me that it is indeed a good thing for New Zealand that the number outstanding is reduced and that officers of the Department of Labour are checking on an individual basis with the 134 people who have yet to apply. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will seek the removal of all Zimbabweans who do not conform and apply for residency before 28 February? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Government’s policy on this matter is clear: that any member of the community who fails to apply by the deadline date can have no guarantee of residence as those who applied before that date do under the policy. 
Agent Orange—Memorandum of Understanding 
12.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister of Veterans’ Affairs 
: What progress has been made in implementing the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Government and the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association and the Ex-Vietnam Services Association and announced on 7 December 2006? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs) 
: 
 A joint implementation group has been established to ensure the effective implementation of the memorandum of understanding. The group is comprised of membership from the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association the Ex-Vietnam Services Association and key Government agencies. Work is already under way to deliver on this Government’s commitment to the provisions of the memorandum of understanding. This is the first time in 30 years that any New Zealand Government has acknowledged the concerns of Viet Nam veterans and their families. 
Judith Collins 
: What reports has the Minister received that no money will be available until the next financial year to pay those Viet Nam veterans suffering from a prescribed condition the promised ex gratia payment of $40000? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I have received no such reports. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House what initiatives if any are currently being worked on? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: In late 2006 both the Prime Minister and I announced at the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association’s annual conference that work would begin on rewriting the War Pensions Act—an Act that has not been touched since 1954 and which is based on the archaic legislation of 1915. We will be working closely with all interested veterans’ organisations to ensure that the final results improve the delivery of services to veterans and their families. As well as this I have initiated a review of Veterans Affairs New Zealand alongside the working party review to ensure that Veterans Affairs New Zealand is set up to be able to deliver its services as effectively as possible in the future. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister accept as reliable the estimate made by Viet Nam veteran Vic Johnson that a further 20 Viet Nam veterans will die before the implementation of understanding; if he does not why does he not? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I am not familiar with the calculation of Mr Johnson and I do not know what basis he has made the calculation on. I can say to the member that if a person was currently in receipt of a war disablement pension for one of the prescribed conditions and was suddenly deceased then I would expect the payout to be made very quickly. 
Judith Collins 
: Is the Minister able to confirm that his own handling of this issue has been cited as a cause for complaint by the director of Veterans Affairs and can he confirm to the House that the director has lodged a substantial personal grievance claim against the Crown? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I can confirm neither of those allegations. 
Judith Collins 
: Can we take it from the Minister’s statement that no personal grievance claim has been lodged by the director of Veterans Affairs? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I repeat for the member for the sake of clarity—belt and braces—I have no knowledge of the matter that the member has spoken about at all. 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a report explaining how the Hon Dr Nick Smith got it wrong in question No. 1 today. It shows that the Prime Minister opened a recycling centre at Awapuni not a power station as it was described by the member. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table the New Zealand Press Association report on the station that was opened and reports it as a power station turning methane into power. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a photograph of me opening that Awapuni power plant on 15 September last year. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.