Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8103] 
Questions to Ministers 
Foreshore and Seabed—Maori Land Court 
1. Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by the statement in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet foreshore and seabed pamphlet that says that the Maori Land Court would be able to consider fully the range of claims and could this give rise to compensation where the Government is unable to give full effect to claims without awarding title? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I stand by the actual statement which was a little different. The Government proposal is that if the court found it was unable to give full recognition to customary interests that it found had continued to exist since 1840 then the court would be able to alert the Government to this consequence. The Government would then discuss with those affected what steps might be taken to address the issue. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: In the light of the Hon John Tamihere’s statement regarding customary rights to the seabed and foreshore that: “If exploration of those rights finds that they have been extinguished then that becomes an issue for compensation.” does this mean that the Government has now given the green light for compensation claims for extinguishment of customary rights not just extinguishment of the title; if not why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No. I am not aware there was ever a customary right to a freehold title. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister consider that raising compensation as an issue is simply a tactic to heighten groundless fears of a taxpayer burden given that tangata whenua have not expressed any desire to exchange their mana whenua and kaitiakitanga for money? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Some of the tangata whenua comment has of course come from a quite explicitly commercial angle while other comment has come from a sovereignty angle. A lot of the Opposition comment has just come from a desire to stir the pot. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Given the absence of specific definitions of customary title customary use and customary access does she have confidence that the Maori Land Court as it stands at the moment would be able to make determinations on those points that would not cut across the Government’s policy objective of ensuring that everyone has equal and unfettered access to the seabed and foreshore? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Frankly not at the moment and that is why the discussion document talks about a specialist division of the Maori Land Court and the Maori Land Court needing to be resourced to deal with such issues. 
Dail Jones 
: Is the Prime Minister saying from her answers and especially from her first supplementary answer that Maoris who lose their customary rights will never be able to get compensation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is not an issue of losing customary rights. The proposal is about seeing that the Maori Land Court is not able to issue a fee simple title. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On the face of it this may be a complex issue but it is not so complex that the Prime Minister can avoid a very straight question which is not what the purview of the Maori Land Court new and reconstructed as it might be in the future might decide but whether if Maori or iwi were to lose their customary rights the Government in its policy contemplates compensation. It is a totally different issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. The Prime Minister gave an answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect this is a very important issue. The Prime Minister may have given an answer but she did not concentrate on the question and she failed to give the New Zealand people and this House any idea as to what the Government’s thinking is which is the purpose of this question time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister addressed the question. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Does the Prime Minister not accept that in a country that has the rule of law if some citizen loses a property right then that is a matter that should be compensated by the courts not at the arbitrary whim of the Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said in answer to the first supplementary question I am not aware there was ever a customary right to hold a freehold title. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Having the Prime Minister repeat her answer to a different question cannot in any way be regarded as an answer especially when I am trying to get the Prime Minister to clarify. It is a very simple question and I think the Prime Minister should answer it. Is the Government of New Zealand saying to one class of New Zealanders because they are Maori that they cannot get compensated but everyone else can? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is for the Prime Minister to determine in her answer. It might not satisfy the member but it was an answer. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Was the Hon Margaret Wilson correct when she said: “If people then want compensation or want money then I suppose that will become as everything is a matter of negotiation.”; if that is so what exactly does the Government intend to compensate Maori for? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The proposal is clear in saying that if the Maori Land Court found that it could not give full recognition to customary interests then the court would be able to alert the Government to this consequence. The Government would then discuss the matter and what steps might be taken. It has not drawn any firm conclusion as to what they might be. This is a highly abstract and theoretical issue at this point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Putting aside all questions of freehold or fee simple title—and given that customary rights have to have some value otherwise the Maori people would not be arguing for them—if they are lost to a Maori a hapu or an iwi does the Government intend now in its 6 weeks’ negotiation with Maoridom and apparently nobody else to compensate them if they are lost? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: This proposal is very specifically about upholding customary rights. I might also point out to the member that the consultation period is for consultation with the whole range of interested New Zealanders and that includes marine interests local government recreational interests and any others who wish to come forward. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: How can she portray this issue as being “highly abstract” to quote her words when she has two Ministers Margaret Wilson and John Tamihere both on the record as saying that if the exploration of those rights finds they have been extinguished then it becomes an issue for compensation; who is being abstract the Prime Minister or her Ministers? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The reason for believing that it is a largely abstract and theoretical issue is that the Court of Appeal judgments implied strongly that that was so. 
Superannuation—Political Parties’ Views 
2.  
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What mechanisms exist for political parties to express support for the present provisions for superannuation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Parties can sign up to Parts 1 and 2 of the New Zealand Superannuation Act of 2001. Part 1 entrenches current entitlements and Part 2 protects the scheme’s future viability of our New Zealand Superannuation Fund. 
Darren Hughes 
: Which political parties have signed up to protect present provisions for superannuation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Labour Party the Progressive party and United Future have signed up to both parts. The Greens have signed up to Part 1 the current entitlements. The oddest response was from the National Party which took 9 months to respond and then had no position. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is it true that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund will even if it earns the unrealistically high rate of 9 percent per annum contribute only $1 in $7 towards the cost of New Zealand superannuation during the years in which it is being drawn down and is this why while the Government has tried to create the illusion that it can maintain the current parameters of the scheme for ever the Minister himself said on 28 October 2000: “We recognise that changes in life expectancy and medical science may lead some future Government to consider raising the age of eligibility above 65.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In answer to the first part of the question no. Even if that were true without the fund it would still mean a cut equivalent to more than $50 a week for a married couple which one has to assume is National Party policy. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the two answers to those questions Dr Cullen has concluded by offering an opinion about National Party policy. Both of them are assumptions. They are at least effete in their nature and quite outside the Standing Orders. He should be asked to withdraw those remarks. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I had to make people withdraw every time they made a comment about an opinion or anything I would be doing it on every question. The member is correct about the second answer and the Minister should not have made that comment. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that New Zealand First would not sign up to either Part 1 or Part 2 because the entitlements were too small we do not condone an investment structure that sends $3.2 billion off shore and denudes our economy of much-needed infrastructural investment and that there was not serious potential as there should have been in the Act to convert balances into individual retirement accounts; a very enlightened position? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I cannot. In a very polite response from the member he indicated there were aspects of Parts 1 and 2 that New Zealand First did not agree with and therefore did not wish to be added to schedule 4. I thank him for clarification on those matters. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister able to advise the House in accordance with the responses received to his invitation to parties considering whether they would sign up to Part 1 and Part 2 in relation to Part 2 dealing with the formation of the Superannuation Fund to pre-fund future superannuation obligations have any parties in particular National New Zealand First ACT or the Greens given any indication of whether they will continue with the fund or wind it up or if they are going to wind it up what alternative they would suggest? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Certainly the Greens have indicated that they would wind up the fund and I think pay off debt or possibly build more roads if we are really lucky in that regard. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point is actually the opposite of Mr Brownlee’s. I do protest—there has been no comment made about the ACT party. We did not agree with any of it; we did not agree with the fund did not agree whether it is sustainable and we are the only party that can do arithmetic. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is as usual not a point of order. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers will the Minister advise the House whether he is receptive at all to the Superannuation Fund or part of it being invested in our infrastructure namely roading instead of our having to borrow off shore or impose road tolls or suchlike on the public; will he give us his view and if his view is positive will he recommend it to the guardians? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the member were to use the fund to invest in roads and not to have tolls it is hard to see what the purpose of the fund would be because there would be no future income stream. 
David Benson-Pope 
: What do the responses detailed earlier mean for the security of superannuation provision into the future? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think it is now much clearer that the provision of an adequate income into retirement depends upon maintaining a Labour-led centre-left Government. Some 2 years ago Mr English did say that he would sign up to Part 1 of the legislation but now he seems to have done a U-turn on that matter. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I seek leave of the House to table a press statement by the Minister of Finance dated 28 October 2000 in which he says that he recognises that there may need to be a change in the age of eligibility. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Prime Minister 
3.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Did she phone her brother-in-law Allan Hardacre a scientist at Crop and Food Research on or about 12 November 2000 to discuss the problem of GM-contaminated corn; and did she request that the then Minister for Biosecurity Hon Marian Hobbs also phone him for advice at that time? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 No and no. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Who is telling the truth given that Mr Allan Hardacre in a written submission to the committee said that the Prime Minister did phone him and furthermore that the Minister for Biosecurity also made her first phone call at the Prime Minister’s request? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I phoned Mr Hardacre some time over the weekend of 25 or 26 November. In further discussion with Marian Hobbs I suggested that she might find it useful to talk to him. Apparently she did. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does she reconcile her statement during the election campaign “on the chair of the board I did not get involved” with the fact that she twice phoned her brother-in-law a scientist at Crop and Food Research with key contracts with the industry; that she requested that Marian Hobbs ring him to discuss the issue and that she also requested that Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet adviser Ruth Wilkie seek advice from him and does she now accept that she was donkey-deep in the Government’s management of this issue? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Absolutely not. I recollect one conversation as is in my written evidence. I did not request Mrs Hobbs or Ms Wilkie to ring the gentleman. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How can the Prime Minister reconcile the answer she has just given to the House and her statements during the election campaign that she knew nothing about any cover-up with a memo to her dated 8 December from Ruth Wilkie who works in her department stating: “We cannot say that we have reliably discovered contamination in the corn currently planted but equally we cannot say that we have completely discounted it. … The blanket ban on new organisms contained in the HSNO Act runs counter to reality. The proposed level of tolerance of .5 percent contamination being found and 99 percent confidence is very low and probably in the long term is not sustainable.” and does that not show that her statements during the election campaign were just not true? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Absolutely not. There was no cover-up. As Dr Prebble said in his evidence the only advice the Prime Minister ever offered him was that if any contamination were found the corn should be uprooted. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the Prime Minister has said that there was no cover-up and on 11 July 2002 said on National Radio: “I believe in total disclosure. I have nothing to hide. All Government advice will be made public.” why was the key memo from Ruth Wilkie that Mr Prebble has just quoted kept secret? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It was certainly not kept secret on my instruction. It most certainly was not. If the member wants to check that with Dr Prebble he should ask him to return to the committee. That was not a decision taken by me or advised by me. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How does the Prime Minister reconcile that answer with the concept of ministerial responsibility and with a memo I have in my hand dated 17 July—10 days before the election—from Ruth Wilkie to Dr Mark Prebble stating: “I wish to register formally my concern I expressed on Saturday the 13th of July about the decision to withhold from public release DPMC notes to the Prime Minister on the management of potentially contaminated corn seed in December 2000. I consider that at least one of the notes filled an important gap in the paper trail.” and is the Prime Minister saying that she takes no ministerial responsibility for what happens in her own department? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Obviously there was a debate between Dr Prebble and Ms Wilkie. I happen to think that Ms Wilkie was right but my advice was not sought at the time. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why should New Zealanders believe any public statement she makes of the sort: “All documents will be released.” when the head of her own department deliberately and knowingly kept key documents secret at the most sensitive time of the electoral cycle? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That was a decision he made. He and Ms Wilkie disagreed on the matter. As I have just said I happen to think that Ms Wilkie was right. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Prime Minister seriously expect the people of New Zealand to believe that the head of her own department would knowingly disobey her specific instructions on the most sensitive document and the most sensitive issue in the 2002 election without her having any knowledge; if so are we also expected to believe in the tooth fairy? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The right honourable Prime Minister can answer the first question. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have said that was a decision that Dr Prebble took on his own. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to consider the  
Hansard 
 from the question that has just passed in the light of the evidential material that we are expected to take to the Clerk’s Office each day to get a question in. It seems to me that there is some concern around the fact that the question referred to “on or about 12 November 2000”. That had to be in there because the open question: “Did you ever phone your brother-in-law?” could not be asked. That would be a ridiculous question and Parliament should not waste its time on whether Ministers phone members of their family. To quantify it in the context of the issue and to make it a reasonable question a date had to be put in there. From the papers that were released it was not unreasonable for Dr Smith to put in “on or about 12 November”. I want to know whether you consider it reasonable for the Prime Minister to say no but subsequently to answer another question by referring to the 26th of that month. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that I have here the question as submitted. It has been changed only a little bit to put in the words “Ltd” “then” and “Minister for Biosecurity”. Apart from that it is exactly as it was submitted. Questions have to be authenticated. Answers are a matter for Ministers and the House decides how it reacts. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect that misses the point. Of course the question went in like that. I said that. I also said that it was reasonable for Dr Smith to do that. What I think is unreasonable is for the Prime Minister to say no to that using up one of our questions then come back a few moments later and say that it was a short period later. That is unacceptable. Members cannot lodge a question that does not make sense. It would have been unintelligible without an “on or about” date in it and it would not have got through. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is a matter for debate. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have had enough of this matter now. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I have asked you to consider something. I did not ask for an instant ruling. I have asked you to consider the  
Hansard 
 when it is printed. It is an important issue. We should not have to use a supplementary question to dig out the essential answer asked for in the primary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has asked me to consider it and I will. I call Jeanette Fitzsimons for a supplementary question. The Greens have not had a question yet. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. They may not have had a question yet but nor have we on this issue. They can take their turn like everybody else. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I beg your pardon I have made a mistake. I am sorry the member is absolutely correct. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Did the Prime Minister advise Dr Prebble not to release this information; if not is he still employed with her department and why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I did not give him that advice. He is still employed as head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and he is a very commendable public servant with much merit. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is someone about to leave. I have called only Jeanette Fitzsimons. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: In the light of her statement in July last year: “I want anyone involved to speak totally openly.” and in the light of Genescan’s refusal to appear and give the select committee its test results on the corn on the grounds of commercial confidentiality will the Government require Genescan which it now owns as a Crown entity to appear and give the committee the information it is seeking? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is my understanding that the Government cannot require that company to appear. I understand—and this is only from what we are hearing in the public arena and from what the committee is hearing—that it is citing commercial reasons. I do not believe that the Government has grounds for trying to go across that. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the House to understand that the position is that 10 days before the election when the Prime Minister was telling the nation that every document with regard to “corngate” had been released the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet had chosen to keep a document secret that revealed that on 8 December she had learnt a great deal about the “corngate” matter that she had denied any knowledge of on TV3 and that her position is now that she knew nothing about that and that Dr Prebble is a model civil servant—who presumably carries out the Prime Minister’s will—who should be recalled to the Local Government and Environment Committee but that she will not front up to that select committee herself even though we have all seen the British Prime Minister being willing to appear before a select committee; why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There must have been at least seven questions in that. Dr Prebble is a model civil servant. He took a decision on his own account. Ms Wilkie disagreed with him and I happen to think she was right. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to firstly table the memo from Ruth Wilkie to the Prime Minister in respect of contaminated corn that was kept secret during the election campaign. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a memo from Ruth Wilkie expressing serious concern that the memo was not released against the Prime Minister’s wishes. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the Radio New Zealand transcripts where the Prime Minister said six times that there would be total openness and that all documents would be released. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the submission from Mr Allan Hardacre saying that he did make two phone calls to the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I understand that is in front of a select committee. It can still be tabled. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Workplace Learning—Government Initiatives 
4.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What progress has the Government made in expanding programmes that support learning in the workplace? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 Today I have announced that 63 new schools will join the Gateway programme next year enabling their senior students to participate in structured workplace learning. That doubles the number of Gateway schools to 60 percent of all decile 1 to decile 5 secondary schools meaning that we are well on the way to having all decile 1 to decile 5 schools involved. The new schools stretch from Taipa Area School in the far north to Menzies College in the deep south and they include Rangitikei College in the member’s own area. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: How are the programmes supporting learning in the workplace progressing? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can also report strong growth in Modern Apprenticeships and industry training. The latest industry training statistics show a 10 percent increase in trainees from 30 June 2002 to 30 June 2003. That is in line with our aim to have 150000 industry trainees in 2005 and a quarter of a million by 2007. We also now have 5739 modern apprentices as at 30 June which is a 76 percent increase from 3254 as at 30 June last year. We are ahead of schedule to reach 6000 Modern Apprenticeships by the end of the year and we are well on track to meet our targets. 
Opposition Members 
: Oh come on! 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Opposition does not like good news. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That answer was too long. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister—who was described by  
Metro 
 magazine as a “bullying social engineer”—have any concerns that tertiary education providers which are already sporting an increasingly “faint waistline” after 3 years of frozen fees may be further constrained from providing programmes of blameless excellence for those engaged in workplace learning by the announcement last week that they will be able to increase their fees by only 5 percent next year; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The answer to that long question is no. 
Ministers—Responsiveness 
5.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the ability of all her Ministers to be responsive to the needs of all New Zealanders? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes but that does not mean that Ministers are expected to agree with everybody all the time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that answer does she hold herself in the same regard as she holds her Ministers; will she admit being the first culprit responsible for the hundreds and hundreds of victims who were infected by hepatitis C and HIV from getting unclean unscreened bad blood when she was the Minister of Health between 1988 and 1990 or is she just washing her hands of that as well? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Certainly not. The member will be aware that the police have just concluded a lengthy investigation following complaints being raised against two former Ministers of Health and found that there was no case to answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister think that that is an adequate standard of public responsiveness and duty of care which she did owe as Minister of Health from 1988 to 1990 when hundreds of people had either truncated or miserable lives or lost their lives and given for example that in Germany in identical circumstances two people who were responsible went to prison and that the Minister in France in identical circumstances went before the higher court; is that her idea of public responsiveness? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There are a number of unsubstantiated allegations in that question. The only thing I have ever been guilty of with regard to duty of care is caring rather too much being too conscientious and working too hard. 
Agriculture—Agricultural Emissions Levy 
6.  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: Is the Government reconsidering its decision to impose an $8.4 million greenhouse gas levy on dairy sheep beef and deer farmers in the light of widespread protests across the country; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 Government climate change policy exempts farmers from emissions charges on agricultural greenhouse gases that would cost them almost $1 billion per year if they were charged in the same way as other industries. This exemption is on the condition that farmers fund more research into reducing their industry’s emissions and the Government is not reconsidering that decision. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Can the Minister categorically deny that he or other Ministers have instructed or indicated to officials that the Government wants a solution to the “flatulence tax” debacle or indeed to reconsider it—yes or no? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: We have been working with the industry to avoid a levy for around 2 years. So far we have been unsuccessful. The whole idea of the Government’s policy was that farmers would make the investment and that the levy that is now forthcoming would be there as a backstop. 
Mark Peck 
: Under what circumstances would the Government reconsider the need for the agricultural emissions research levy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Government’s first preference has always been for voluntary industry funding for research into agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. If the agricultural sector makes its own arrangements to provide the funding needed for a serious research programme the levy will be unnecessary. 
Hon David Carter 
: Why did the Minister say on 16 November 2001: “I can offer you a personal viewpoint which is that to tax cattle and sheep in that way is a remarkably stupid thing to do.”; what level of protest from New Zealand farmers and what level of absolute ridicule from around the world will it take for the Government to back down on the “flatulence tax”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I can remind the member that that is precisely what I and many other Ministers did which is why the Government exempted this sector—unlike any other—from a methane tax in return for which we had anticipated a research programme to be funded by farmers with a levy mechanism to collect the money if necessary. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Government need to pass legislation to enable it to collect the greenhouse gas levy; if so given United Future’s clear opposition to the imposition of the levy does he have any idea which party in this House will give support for that legislation? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Government will need to pass legislation if it is to collect a compulsory levy and will search for like-minded parties as it approaches that decision. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Minister at least be reasonable and give farmers the choice of whether to start paying the research levy now or instead to pay a full methane tax from 2007 as all the other emitters are being asked to do? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Those who request choice do not always request all types of choice and that is one the farmers would reject straight away. 
Hon David Carter 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement made to a public meeting of over 300 farmers in the Hawke’s Bay on 14 August this year when explaining the science of global warming that “I am making this up as I go along.”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Those who choose to take 9 seconds from a 90-minute meeting and to fail to give that any context as to whether I said—[ 
Interruption 
] I do think the position of the ACT party is however interesting acknowledging that it has got the bus the petition and the commitment from Mr Gerrard Eckhoff. That same gentleman told a group of farmers that ACT would withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol and give the sink credits back to the farmers. Members should try to work that one out. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In the light of the Minister’s reply is it not clear that he has now changed his position from one of having made an effectively non-negotiable decision to one where he is trying to find a compromise in the face of massive rural protest—in other words a complete U-turn—and why will the Minister not recover some of his credibility by coming clean admitting that to the House right now and apologising to rural New Zealand for the deep offence this Government has caused? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I can do no better than to quote from my own press statement at the time that the Government announced its policy. Let me do so. There are only two sentences: “The Government will exempt the agricultural sector from any emissions charge or trading regime in the first commitment period provided this sector invests in research to identify options for reducing agricultural emissions. Secondly the Government retains the option of imposing a research levy if the research effort falls below what is required.” It has. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Given the Minister’s comments about the danger of taking things out of context I seek leave for him to read the whole press statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but the member cannot ask for leave on behalf of another member. I think he knows that but it was a very good try. 
Care of Children Bill—Access 
7.  
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Does she agree that it is usually in the best interests and welfare of a child to have regular ongoing contact with both of its parents; if so would she support an amendment to the Care of Children Bill to that effect? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes I do particularly where parents cooperate with each other putting the best interests and welfare of the child ahead of their own interests. The Care of Children Bill is currently before the Justice and Electoral Committee and I am looking forward to receiving the report of the committee after it has heard the submissions. I certainly would not rule out making an appropriate amendment to clause 4 of the bill. 
Murray Smith 
: In the light of the Minister’s positive response to this proposal by United Future is she also prepared to reconsider the provisions of clause 17(2) of the Care of Children Bill to remove reference to ‘“the father of a child”’ as constituting a reference to the same-sex de facto partner of a mother as requested by United Future? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes. As I said when I introduced the bill I am certainly happy to look at completely rewriting that. Under the circumstances I am also happy to consider completely removing it. 
Richard Worth 
: Is it an appropriate outcome for parents who are fit and proper parents to be denied custody of their child in favour of a third party yet under the present legislation to still be required to pay child support; if so why in the context of the international convention on the rights of the child? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: There are a number of reasons that ongoing contact is actually not in the best interests of the child. There could be examples of incest abuse or failure to provide proper care for children. There could be mental health issues. I am sure the member is not referring to a particular individual case because that would be entirely inappropriate in the House. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Given that the Care of Children Bill even if rewritten will ensure that a lesbian partner will be considered a parent—even though the biological father will not necessarily be so—will the effect of the proposed United Future amendment referred to in the substantive question ensure that regular ongoing contact will be available for children with both their lesbian parents? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No I think that the member completely misunderstands the nature of the question that was put. The question related to the principles that would govern decisions that under the legislation have to be in the best interests and welfare of the child. I think the member is confusing about three different aspects of the legislation. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister aware of the letter from Green Party MP Sue Kedgley dated 3 May 2000 to the Hon Minister Margaret Wilson which requests that a principle of frequent and continuing contact with both parents be included in the review of the Guardianship Act; and can she confirm that this issue has been raised by the Green Party with her office in subsequent meetings? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes I can confirm both those matters. But I think it is very important that as we consider this legislation when it comes back to the House it must be considered from the perspective of the best interests and welfare of children—not parental rights but children’s rights. 
Tim Barnett 
: How does the Care of Children Bill encourage an ongoing role for both parents? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The bill contains provisions that emphasise the continuing guardianship role of both parents in a child’s life regardless of whom the child lives with. It requires the Family Court to consider contact arrangements where a parent will not have day-to-day care of a child. It provides funding for formal supervised contact sessions where a parent has been violent and provides realistic enforcement measures to make the parenting orders work. 
Murray Smith 
: Does the Minister agree that in the best interests and welfare of the child the Care of Children Bill should address the issue of whether the granting of guardianship to a non-parent spouse or partner should be subject to that spouse’s or partner’s relationship with a custodial parent having met a minimum stability period such as that provided for in the Property (Relationships) Act? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That would mean that there would be two separate considerations given to a child who was born to a married couple that for example had married within a week of meeting each other and a different standard applied to those who had been the subject of separation. Therefore I think it is very important that people realise there are consequences beyond those that have an appearance of relating only to that particular matter. It is very important that on the question of guardianship rights and responsibilities the best interests and welfare of the child come first. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does the Minister agree that present family law is tilted so heavily against fathers that literally tens of thousands of children are now totally alienated from their fathers; if so will she support my amendment to the Care of Children Bill to introduce shared parenting? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No and no. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 In view of the absence of the Minister of Maori Affairs to whom the question is addressed I seek the leave of the House to defer this question until the next sitting day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to defer. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to seek your guidance on this matter. I asked a very similar question to the same Minister yesterday. As a courtesy to the Minister I sought leave to defer it. That leave was denied. I have been denied that leave again today. I do understand the Standing Orders on this question but want your guidance. I know that the Minister has no public engagements today. I want to say to you that there is a certain point where Opposition members have to conclude that a deliberate strategy is being engaged in to shield an incompetent Minister from the scrutiny of the House at question time. When that happens I suggest to you that there must be some recourse for members on this side. To have a strategy of that sort is to show contempt for the Parliament and contempt for question time. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The member of course has an obvious remedy in not asking the question today but can I make two further points. Firstly the Minister is not here. He is absent and he is not well. Secondly two Ministers have responsibility for the Maori Television Service and I am the other Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please ask the question. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I have ruled on the point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] Well the member can speak very briefly. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: We have to put in our questions by mid-morning. It is one of the difficulties that we constantly have. We in the ACT party have one question and quite often—I am sure it is the same for the other political parties—we have a question that is specific to a particular Minister who has been dealing with the issue. We get another Minister answering who says that he or she does not know. I was wondering whether it would be a helpful innovation to the Parliament if it could be signalled who will be in the House at 2 o’clock—whether it will be the Minister or the Prime Minister—particularly given that we have such absences. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can make that submission to the Standing Orders Committee. I am bound by the current Standing Orders. I just say in ruling on the point that there is no longer any leave of absence provisions in our Standing Orders. That is something that the member might want to make a submission on. I have no role in ensuring attendance; I have a role in ensuring that the question will be answered by a Minister of the Crown. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise two issues. Firstly in putting this question down the Opposition was aware that the Minister was interviewed on radio this morning so the Opposition certainly had no inclination that the Minister would not be able—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I hear anybody making an interjection that member will leave the Chamber on the spot. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Opposition was aware that the Minister was interviewed this morning on the radio. We heard that interview so there was no inclination that he would not be here today. The second point I want to raise is the issue that Dr Cullen raises. He said in his comments that the member who put the question down simply had the option of not asking the question today because the Minister is not here today. That is an option and that is why leave was sought to delay the question until the Minister is here. It is no good the Deputy Prime Minister being part of denying the ability of the Opposition to ask a question of a particular Minister and then getting up by way of a point of order—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Mr Swain will leave the Chamber. He interjected. Please carry on. 
Hon Paul Swain withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: —and then saying that the way to deal with this is not to ask the question today. The Opposition and I seek leave again—following Dr Cullen’s invitation that we should ask the question when the Minister is here—not to ask the question today but to ask it when the Minister next returns to the Chamber. We are happy to wait if it does not get put down tomorrow. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am prepared to put the leave question again. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. Would the member please ask the question. No? I then call question No. 9 Sue Kedgley. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that you have now moved on to question No. 9. That was the deliberate intent of the Opposition. I want to make the point that inasmuch as order in the House is your preserve it is a point of order to point out the deep disappointment the Opposition has that the Government continues to shield incompetent Ministers and not put them through the proper scrutiny that this process is supposed to encourage. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am not prepared to accept that statement from the member. That is an outrageous statement. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s true. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No it is not true at all. Mr Horomia is not well. The fact that he can carry out a radio interview does not mean he can come to this building to participate in normal work. Some day that member will be in that position as well and I hope some good grace is shown to him. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Cullen can rise to his feet with a sense of outrage and anger but he owed the Opposition some openness and candidness when he knew that the Minister would not be available for that reason and he should have had the decency to advise the Opposition so it could rephrase the question to someone else. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did do that when he was asked— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No he didn’t. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes he did. I heard him say it on a point of order. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Now? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No not just then but about 5 minutes ago. I invite the member to look at the transcript. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: He should have had the decency to advise the Opposition then and not be outraged now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot be asked to rule on why a member a Minister or a back-bencher is not present in the Chamber. That is not part of my role. When it is requested that a question be answered by a Minister my role is to ensure that it is answered by a Minister. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to make the point that in your ruling you said the Deputy Prime Minister made the offer that the question could be rephrased. In fact he made two offers. He offered that the question not be asked which is what has happened and that it be put down for when the Minister is here. We twice sought leave for that to occur and both times the Deputy Prime Minister objected. So it is a bit disingenuous of him to stand up in the House and say that we could put it down for when the Minister is here. The Government will not say when he will be here. It is an issue that the Government knows the Minister is in some difficulty on. The Government will not say when he will be here and it will not let the question be held over until he can answer it. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I did not say that. I said the member did not need to ask the question which he did not. He is now free to submit the question as one of tomorrow’s questions. I am afraid I cannot give the member an indication as to when the Minister will be here. He will be here— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Aw! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member interjected during a point of order. By rights he should be asked to leave the Chamber. On this occasion provided he makes no further comment I will allow the Deputy Prime Minister to continue. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister is not well. He will return as soon as he can. That may well be tomorrow but I cannot give that guarantee. I point out again that on this particular issue it is not a matter of any old Minister being prepared to answer the question. I am the other Minister with statutory responsibility for the Maori Television Service and I am perfectly competent to answer this question. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 Strong condemnation was directed towards me by the Deputy Prime Minister at the statement I made at the conclusion of question No. 8 as we moved towards question No. 9. I want to make the point that members of this House are extremely considerate of other members who suffer illness or other personal circumstances that keep them from this House. If the Minister of Maori Affairs is not able to be here to answer a question because he is ill that surely raises the question of who the Acting Minister is at the present time. Has the warrant been transferred and if it has why have we not been told? Other than that it is perfectly reasonable for us to assume that if we put a question down to a Minister with a ministerial responsibility that Minister will be here to answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister indicated that he was the other Minister responsible for it and he was prepared to do so. I twice heard Dr Cullen say that. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there is a way through this. Accepting Dr Cullen’s point that the Minister is unwell and that he is not sure when he will be fit enough to return it may save Opposition parties their questions—given that there are some serious questions for the Minister—if the Labour Party whip could undertake say by 9.30 to alert the other parties’ whips that the Minister of Maori Affairs will be well and in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That has nothing to do with me; it has to do with members. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have just told us that there were two Ministers who could answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I was told by the Minister— 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes you were told that and you confirmed it by instructing the House as such. If that is the case why was the question not transferred to the other Minister this morning so that we could have known at 11 o’clock who was going to be answering it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The reason is that any Minister can answer any question on anyone else’s behalf. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that this is not a matter within your capacity but I do think that the point that has been raised is a reasonable one. I wish the Minister of Maori Affairs a rapid recovery but when MPs listen to the Minister speaking on the radio and then be condemned because he is ill that causes some trouble—and you can see that the question has not been asked. I think it is reasonable for the Leader of the House to say that he will ensure an email is put around before 10 o’clock when questions have to be in to let members know whether the Minister of Maori Affairs regardless of whether we have heard him on radio will be able to appear in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for the way in which he phrased that point of order. Of course it is up to the Government to do that if it wishes. 
Infant Formulae—Genetic Modification 
9.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: Can she tell New Zealand parents the names of the four unidentified infant formulae that tested positive for genetically modified soy in the recent New Zealand Food Safety Authority report on food produced using gene technology; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 I do not have the names of those products. The review was one of the routine audits carried out by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority and as the genetic modification (GM) found was approved by Food Standards Australia New Zealand and was also well below the 1 percent threshold that is provided in the standard relating to GM labelling for unintentional presence the products did not break the law. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Surely parents feeding their babies soy infant formula have a right to know whether their infant formula contains unlabelled genetically engineered (GE) soy especially as GE soy has never been tested on humans or tested for its long-term health effects? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The food standard that is in place is to do with labelling. It is not to do with safety. There are no GM products in New Zealand that have not been approved by Food Standards Australia New Zealand. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What action does the New Zealand Food Safety Authority take regarding compliance failure? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The action it takes is to identify what products do not comply. In the recent review it found that only two products of the 117 tested did not comply. Both of them were actually making a GE-free claim. One of these was a tofu vegetarian sausage sold in an organic shop and the other was a smoked sausage which was also claimed to be GE free. Both cases have been referred to the Commerce Commission for consideration under the Fair Trading Act. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does she agree that the findings of the food safety audit that more than half the importers and manufacturers who were surveyed did not have current information on the GE status of their food and that 68 percent of importers did not even have verification systems in place to confirm the GE status of food suggest that the GE food labelling system is a shambles and what is she doing to fix it? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have told that member but she apparently has not heard that part of the food-labelling regime put in place by Food Standards Australia New Zealand in 2000 was to review it after 3 years. The review was announced in August. I know that the member got a copy of the press release and probably the terms of reference. That labelling regime is now being reviewed. It was the first of its type in the world. We are now looking to see whether we need to change it to bring it into line with any other labelling regimes in other parts of the world. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is the Minister planning to further review the regulations relating to food safety and other ingested substances in order to ascertain whether the ingestion of alcohol or food of a particular sort at a dinner with the Hon Richard Prebble last night was responsible for the headaches that Bill English has today? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And now he will leave the Chamber. 
Hon Trevor Mallard withdrew from the Chamber. 
Sue Kedgley 
: If more than half the importers and manufacturers in New Zealand do not have current information on the GE status of their foods or do not have verification systems in place how can we be sure that our foods are correctly labelled with regard to GE; and why on earth is the food safety agency budget for monitoring GM food being slashed by more than two-thirds in this financial year and how will the Minister ensure compliance when the budget is $50000? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: We have for the first time put in place surveillance and monitoring of the GM labelling regime. That is why we have just carried out an audit. That is how we can tell whether foods do comply. They have a spot check. There are some mandatory checks. That was never done in New Zealand although we have had food with GM product in it for around 10 years. 
Immigration—Tax Revenue 
10.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Has she received any reports from the Minister of Revenue as to the effects of immigration on tax revenue? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is this Minister telling me that despite the fact that the Inland Revenue Department is aware of tax fraud of up to $30 million a year in the horticultural industry from immigrant labour and foreign fly-by-night employee organisers she has never received any report whatsoever from the Minister of Revenue on this very serious fraud of the New Zealand taxpayer? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not aware of the Inland Revenue Department being aware of any of that. I would like to see some evidence for once from that member. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister always the last person to know? What the Inland Revenue Department advised the New Zealand Fruitgrowers Federation at a meeting that was reported on at the February meeting of the fruitgrowers’ Te Puke association—[ 
Interruption 
] Is this a laughing matter? The biggest laugh in this House is this incompetent Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am warning members. I want the member to start his question again and I ask the senior Government whip to make sure that his Ministers keep quiet. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister always the last one to know about a very serious issue within her portfolio when Andrew Fenton the chairman of the board of the Satara Cooperative Group and the Bay of Plenty fruitgrowers’ representative on the New Zealand Fruitgrowers Federation reported that at the New Zealand Fruitgrowers Federation meeting before February the Inland Revenue Department made a presentation in which it pointed out the massive losses taking place in respect of collections because of fraud of the Inland Revenue Department occasioned by immigration immigrants and organisers of foreign workers? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am aware of the shortcomings of people working illegally in this country and I do know a lot about it. That is why this Government acted to change the law to bring in a strict liability offence for employers in that regard. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member’s supplementary questions have expired. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: As $30 million per annum is involved and this is a terribly serious matter I seek leave to ask this Minister a further question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Pacific Island Forum—Auckland Meeting 
11.  
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (NZ Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What were the major issues under discussion at the Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Auckland last week and what outcomes are expected from those discussions? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 Pacific leaders focused their discussions on regional security environmental concerns trade travel health and good governance. They also elected a new forum secretary-general and agreed to a review of the secretariat. Among the key initiatives to emerge was a scoping study on aviation and shipping and a regional policing initiative to strengthen police training competency standards and cooperation across the region. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: How will the police training initiative impact on promoting stability in the region and what steps were taken to deal with problems of insecurity in the region? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The police training initiative aims to improve police skills and competency raise standards and ethics and facilitate cooperation between police forces across the region. It will involve the training of up to 900 police officers a year and will be funded by Australia and New Zealand. Other security initiatives included the full endorsement of the regional assistance mission in the Solomons and further encouragement to countries to enact and implement counter-terrorism and law enforcement legislation. 
Keith Locke 
: What initiatives will the Minister be encouraging the forum secretariat to take on West Papua in the light of the concern expressed in the final communiqué of the forum that the special autonomy for West Papua is not being fully implemented and there is continuing human rights abuse and continuing violence unfortunately illustrated in this morning’s  
Dominion Post 
 
which reported the killing of three West Papuans? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The forum did a number of things on West Papua. It reiterated the support for special autonomy as the most realistic way of getting a peaceful resolution of the situation there. The forum urged Indonesia to promulgate the necessary regulations for that to happen and to take other steps. Members expressed concern about the continuing violence and abuse of human rights and called Indonesia to bring to justice the perpetrators of those human rights abuses. That message was translated directly by me in the post-forum dialogue to Hassan Wirajuda the Indonesian foreign Minister who attended the post-forum dialogue talks. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In view of reports emanating from the forum that a number of the proposals advanced by the Australians were not well received by forum members can the Minister indicate whether that lack of good reception was due to the fact that the proposals were being advanced by Australia or due to the proposals themselves; if it was the latter can he indicate what steps New Zealand might be prepared to take in picking up that cause? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think the Prime Minister indicated that New Zealand played a very important role as a bridge between the aspiration of the Australians and the smaller Pacific Island countries. I think in the end the initiatives taken by Australia were welcomed. The police training initiative the HIV/AIDS initiative and the aviation and shipping scoping studies are amongst those issues. The currency issue was not raised in fact at the forum; it was raised by the Senate committee in Australia and I could say that that proposal had no currency at the forum at all. 
Question No. 12 to Minister 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek leave for this question to be held over to the next sitting day when the Minister of Local Government might be available to answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for this question to be held over. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Local Government—Partnership with Central Government 
12.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Does he still believe “a strong and effective partnership between local and central government is critical” and how does the Hon Dr Michael Cullen’s labelling of Marlborough Mayor Tom Harrison as “racist” help his primary objective as Minister of Local Government to “strengthen that partnership through dialogue”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Local Government 
: Yes strong and effective partnerships between local and central government are critical. Such partnerships also allow for robust debate. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Since it was the Prime Minister who encouraged Tom Harrison and his council to “take some action” in relation to the foreshore and seabed court decision what has gone wrong with the relationship between the Government and the Marlborough District Council that now sees the Government calling Mr Harrison a racist? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: After recent decisions by the district council to take a different position from Mr Harrison relationships have improved significantly. But somebody who stopped being a member of New Zealand First because he disliked the party’s Maori caucus in waiting clearly has some difficulties. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Dr Cullen might be embarrassed because he is as guilty as sin of accusing someone of being racist when even the Maori proponents have defended the mayor in question but he will not malign this party with a tissue of lies. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I wish the member had listened. I did not malign his party at all. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes you did. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What I said was that the person in question resigned was turned off by the New Zealand First Party because he referred to something he called the party’s Maori caucus in waiting. I do not see that as a criticism of New Zealand First at all. 
David Parker 
: How does the Government foster strong and effective partnerships with local government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We have a regular— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you need to see where the wickets are and where that question is aimed at. Specifically the primary question was about the comments made by a Minister it affects the portfolio areas of another Minister and refers very specifically to Dr Cullen referring to Mr Harrison as a racist. To go as wide as asking what programmes the Government has in place to foster partnerships is surely a long way off the intent of the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No a part of the question did refer to partnerships and the member is asking about that. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have an extraordinarily long answer but very briefly the Government runs regular central/local government forums. Central government involves Local Government New Zealand in the policy development process. There are a range of joint working-groups. In particular I mention the joint work that is going on with Auckland in terms of transport development in that city. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is it fair to say that his Government’s commitment to building strong relationships with local government extends only to those local government politicians who agree with them and if they do not agree with the Government they are likely to get labels such as Tom Harrison being labelled a racist? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. We even have excellent relationships with Mayor John Banks of Auckland who is not a well-known Labour Party supporter. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has he any concerns that the term “racist” is in danger of being downgraded by this Government which hurls the term at anyone who has a policy to do with Maori issues and disagrees with this Government or indeed is critical of this Government; and would he not think it a wise idea to keep the term “racist” for people who truly are racists? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Certainly I do not think the term “racist” is as misused by the left as the term “politically correct” is by the right. But somebody who regards Maori indigenous rights as a form of apartheid is certainly bordering upon being a bit strange in the New Zealand context. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a news item dated this day where John Mitchell of Ngati Tama iwi defends Mr Harrison and blames central government—namely Dr Cullen. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I seek leave to table a reference in an article in the  
Marlborough Express 
 yesterday where Mr Harrison was accused of racist remarks by a Maori group. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the acting Minister of Local Government now telling us that if people want to protect what they think is theirs and claim a right to what they believe is theirs that is an act of apartheid; if so is he labelling every Maori claimant to seabed and foreshore in this country a person or persons or organisations that promote apartheid? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. It was Mr Harrison who made that claim.