Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:12078] 
Questions to Ministers 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that you try to clamp down on the practice of people seeking leave to table documents and then wanting to make a speech about them. But a few moments ago when Paula Bennett sought to table a document she said: “I seek leave to table a document from the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 which clearly states—” and at that point the microphone went dead. The House cannot possibly have known what it was about. I just ask you Madam Speaker although I think you are on the right track to perhaps give people an opportunity to say exactly what it is they are trying to table. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his comment. It is noted. 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
:  
I seek leave to table a document entitled “Emissions regime proposals look sound” which is a National Party press release. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Accident Compensation—Employers' Liability 
6.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does she stand by her statement yesterday “it is irrelevant whether he injured his toe or whether it was a gang-related shooting … It relates to the time and the place rather than to how the injury was incurred.”; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes; because it is factually correct. To summarise the relevant section of the Act a work-related personal injury is one that an employee has incurred while he or she is at any place for the purposes of his or her employment including while he or she is having a break from work at his or her place of employment. Also as specified by the Act it is irrelevant to the decision whether any employee suffering a work-related personal injury was indulging in misconduct negligence or was acting against or in the absence of instruction at the time the injury occurred. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why does the Minister continue to claim that the 2003 gang shooting of Mr Storey is work-related when the man was not working but on a break outside AFFCO’s staffroom outside the security fence and outside the employer’s control? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: There are two parts to my answer. The first is in relation to the break. A break is clearly specified in the legislation as being included in one’s time of work. So it does not matter whether the injury happened during morning tea at lunchtime or during afternoon tea as long as the employee was on work premises. The member asserts that the car-park was not defined as a place of work. As I have said for the last 2 days in answers to the same question there is a process for resolution so that agreement on the facts can be reached. I would recommend again to AFFCO that it follows that process. 
Lesley Soper 
: Has the Minister seen any reports confirming that this injury occurred at the place of employment of the injured person and that therefore under the definition as found in legislation it would be considered a work-related personal injury? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I have seen several. The first is from Anne Tolley and states that the injured employee was “on a work break and was sitting in a car in a car-park that provides car parks for AFFCO workers”. The second is from an AFFCO spokesperson Mr Richard Griffin who stated: “As Mr Storey was shot on AFFCO property ACC’s legal position would be strong if the case went to court.” The third is from AFFCO’s case manager who told the claimant that AFFCO had accepted cover with the words: “Your employer acknowledges your injury to be work-related.” All three are in agreement that this injury according to the legislation is work-related. I still cannot understand why Anne Tolley and the National Party are happy for the taxpayer to pick up what is legally AFFCO’s financial responsibility. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why is it that AFFCO does not consider it a work-related incident the Occupational Safety and Health Service does not consider it a work-related accident the police do not consider it a work-related accident the media and the public do not consider it a work-related accident and in fact the only person who does consider this gang shooting to be work-related is the Minister? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I do not make determination of cover for any injury; neither does the member and tragically neither does the court of public opinion. There is a legal process for AFFCO to follow. I am not sure why it does not want to. It may be that Anne Tolley its own case manager and its spokesperson have all said it is wrong in the law. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why does the Minister continue to claim that the accident took place inside AFFCO’s security fence when TV footage clearly shows that the car-park is outside the plant’s fence and openly used by the public? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: If there is a dispute over the facts about where in fact the injury—the shooting—occurred there is a process that AFFCO could follow. I recommend that it takes up that opportunity. 
Anne Tolley 
: Is the Minister aware that when AFFCO told the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) it wanted to revoke the designation of this accident as work-related ACC asked it not to; when AFFCO said it would like to ACC said it could not; when AFFCO said it would do so anyway ACC confiscated the file; and when AFFCO finally asked for dispute resolution ACC said no? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No absolutely not. I do know that there has already been one attempt at mediation and that the next opportunity of engagement was delayed while this member raised the matter in the House in an attempt to get the taxpayer contribution to AFFCO’s responsibility increased. Currently AFFCO is responsible for $1 million of this claim. It is likely that the total cost of this claim will be over $8 million. That is an actuarial assessment. So AFFCO currently is responsible for less than one-eighth of the claim—a responsibility it is trying to get out of. 
Anne Tolley 
: Will the Minister give an undertaking to this House that she will see that sensible negotiations take place between ACC and AFFCO in order to resolve this stupid dispute over a gang-related shooting costing a company $1 million? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As the member well knows I am a strong supporter of negotiated resolution and I certainly accept her bipartisan commitment to that process. 
Climate Change—Land Management 
7.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Forestry 
: What steps is the Government taking to address climate change in the land management sector? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Forestry) 
: 
 This morning the Government announced a comprehensive response to climate change including an economy-wide emissions trading scheme. The Government proposes under this scheme that forests planted after 1989 will be eligible for 100 percent of carbon credits as well as the liabilities generated by those forests from 1 January 2008. That along with a $50 million Afforestation Grants Scheme is expected to significantly increase the planting of trees across New Zealand. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What reports has the Minister seen on climate change in regard to forestry? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have seen a blue-green document from the National Party that proposes to abolish the limits on deforestation. I have also seen a report saying the National Party would give only a portion—I repeat a portion—of carbon credits to forest owners. It is clear that there would be significantly fewer incentives to plant forests under a National Government than there are under this Government and that there would be absolutely no controls on deforestation. That comes from a party that has been screaming about a chainsaw massacre of 0.017 percent of our plantation forest estate. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister stand by his press statement of 6 March this year in response to John Key’s call that carbon credits should be allocated to Kyoto forest owners now that the Government has adopted just that policy when in the press release he said the policy was “political naivety” fiscal madness “would create huge windfall gains for a few forest owners at the expense of ordinary taxpayers” and the “emperor of the National Party has no clothes”—or is it the Minister who is naked today? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I stand behind every one of those statements because at the time the Kyoto Forestry Association was asking for all the credits and none of the liabilities. Today what it got was the credits and the liabilities. When the association looks at the situation carefully it may decide that one should never ask for what one wants—one might get it. I do say that I stand behind those statements more than I wonder whether Mr Key stands behind his statement in May 2005 that the Kyoto regime and climate change were a complete and utter hoax. Then in a subsequent interview with Kathryn Ryan in 2006 he said: “I firmly believe in climate change and always have.” 
Steve Chadwick 
: If the Government does not devolve deforestation—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will please begin her question again. 
Steve Chadwick 
: If the Government does not devolve deforestation liabilities to those who convert forest land to pasture who bears the cost? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Madam Speaker— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Who’s arguing about this? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Well the National Party is actually. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s a shame you didn’t get up early. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Coming from Gerry Brownlee a comment about getting up early— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The interjections are starting to create disorder as is the chipping across the House. There are opportunities to ask questions and there are opportunities to hear the answers. Would the Minister please address the question. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The member asks a very good question. If the Government were to abolish the deforestation cap as National proposed that would place no restrictions on deforestation. The taxpayer and the environment would have to pick up the bill for that. Meanwhile a few individuals would make handsome profits for themselves at everybody else’s expense. That is called the National policy of capitalising one’s profits and socialising one’s losses. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table National’s blue-green vision which makes it plain that National supports the allocation of those liabilities as well as those credits. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Supplementary question Madam Speaker? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I ask members who have documents they wish to table to do so at the end of the question. That is the convention. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It has become a common habit of the Government for Ministers to grossly misrepresent in their supplementary answers National’s policy. I think it is best for the operation of the House that where those errors are made they be corrected immediately. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will obviously use my judgment on that but those are matters of debate. This is question time. The member should ask his supplementary question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Government in June 2000 decide to allocate to Kyoto forest owners the carbon credits then reverse that decision in July 2002 and state it would not allocate them and now change its position again to one of allocating the carbon credits to the forest owners; and is it any wonder that we have seen net deforestation of 10 million trees over these last 4 years when the forestry policy keeps flip-flopping all over the place? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The Government made no such policy statement unlike the National Party which between 2002 and 2006— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was in respect of Cabinet decisions. The Minister thank goodness has no responsibility for National Party policy. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please address the question. The member is right. The Minister cannot address National Party policy but any reports that he has heard about that policy can of course be addressed. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: That is true Madam Speaker. I am pleased that I do not have responsibility for it. But I point out to the House that between 2002 and 2006 11 climate change - related bills were put to this House and National members voted against every single one of them. How much credibility do they have on climate change with that kind of record? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister is obviously quoting from a document and I wonder whether he is prepared to table it now because it would show how many of those 11 bills were actually passed and are still effective today. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows having been here a long time it is for a member himself or herself to decide whether to table a document. Someone else cannot ask on a member’s behalf. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the Cabinet minute from June 2000 when the Government made an “in principle” decision to allocate carbon credits— 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the Cabinet minute from July 2002 when the Government rescinded that decision and said that it would not allocate carbon credits. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the record of the National Party’s vote against 11 climate change - associated bills. 
Document not tabled. 
Secondary Schools—Graduation Rates 
8.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Why have graduation rates at upper secondary school level decreased from 80 percent in 2000 to 72 percent in 2005 when over the same period the OECD average has increased from 76 percent to 82 percent? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The main reason is that we have changed the basis for recording graduation rates from participation to qualifications attained. I also point out to the member that the same report also states that the proportion of New Zealanders attaining at least upper secondary education is consistently about 10 percentage points above the OECD average. Our own data would reinforce that kind of gain because it shows that the number of students leaving school with little or no formal attainment halved between 1999 and 2006 and the number of students achieving National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 increased from 57 percent to 63 percent between 2004 and 2006. 
Katherine Rich 
: Is the Minister saying that New Zealand has changed the way we now count these students; if so why has there been a steady decline over a period of years in the number of students finishing high school because surely we have not been changing the way we count those students every year? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes. I confirm for the member that one of the things we have done is change from recording the number of people participating to recording the qualifications they gain which is clearly a much more robust way of doing it. I also point out that one of the problems with the OECD report is that not everybody records the same kind of data towards the end of students’ schooling. For example NCEA is a form of standards-based assessment; that is not the case in all countries. I also mention that countries like the UK and Australia were not even included in the data for this particular area. So comparisons are quite difficult to make but we do know that within our own system we are seeing increasing numbers of people gain qualifications stay on longer in school and attain higher levels of qualifications. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Does the Minister have any suggestions about how we could encourage students to stay at school longer and thereby provide a pathway to employment? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes. At the present time we are doing a wide range of things like reducing leaving exemptions suspensions exclusions and truancy. We are supporting a successful transition through further education through Gateway the Youth Transitions Service and the Secondary Tertiary Alignment Resource otherwise known as STAR; more second-chance opportunities through alternative education and things like the teen parent units; more information for parents and communities through things like Te Mana and Team-Up; and a range of improvements like Te Kotahitanga new assessment practises and new teaching practises all of which are aimed at giving a more diverse education system. I contrast that with a report I saw very recently that suggested that the way to cure this issue was to introduce American-style graduation ceremonies. That seems to be the only idea that the National Party has been able to advance recently. I am not sure it would change the situation as much as the rich policies coming from the Labour Party would. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Could it be that the reason why fewer students are graduating from upper secondary school compared with the number in 2000 is that standards have risen since that time given that it is unlikely there has been any significant change in the overall capability of the cohort; and has he received any reports of another party in this House advocating strongly for precisely such a tightening of educational standards? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No. I say to the member that the main reason is simply the change in the way we collect the information. I am glad we have changed it because it now has a much more robust basis. But I endorse the second part of the question; two parties at least in the Chamber are advocating ever-higher standards and they are certainly New Zealand First and Labour—and I would probably count the Progressives as well. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does the Minister accept that even if he argues that New Zealand data is not comparable with the OECD data and we consider only the information sent from New Zealand graduation rates at the secondary level have been in significant decline over the 5-year period from 2000 to 2005? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No I do not accept that at all. I think the member needs to go back to our own data. The report for example—to go back to what I said earlier—sees us as being consistently about 10 percentage points above the OECD average in terms of New Zealanders gaining upper secondary education and we are seeing increases in NCEA achievement and we are seeing NCEA level 2 being achieved by more students. Those are the important points—that we are seeing a steady improvement in the number of young people gaining qualifications. They are gaining more and higher qualifications. 
Judy Turner 
: Given that the OECD report highlighted that New Zealand suffers one of the widest gender gaps in the developed world does he intend to honour the Government’s recent commitment to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women to intensify its efforts to meet the target of eliminating gender inequalities in primary and secondary education by the earliest possible date and at all educational levels by 2015; or because boys are suffering rather than girls will the Government continue to simply ignore the 22 percent gender gap in education? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No of course not. In fact one of the things we have just been convening again in recent times is the boys’ reference group. We have been looking at experience around the world as to how to improve outcomes for boys. In particular one of the things we think will work is to continue to diversify the way that education is delivered in New Zealand so that not only boys but Maori Pacific Islanders—all the groups that are not doing as well—get education that is tailored to their particular learning styles and achievement outcomes. But the member can rest assured that we are not going to sit by and let that gender gap stay there. We certainly do not want to see anything other than constant improvement amongst girls but we want to see boys improve as well. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why does the Minister’s Government continue to sing the praises of international reports such as those from the OECD when the results are good for New Zealand only to question the validity of data or comparability of data when the results are bad for New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: We actually release all of the OECD’s information in the usual way. In the case of this report the data was released in the usual way. The Ministry of Education has been replying to questions about it. We are replying to questions about it here. We always welcome international comparisons. We have one of the best systems in the world. We are always very happy to have ourselves compared with others because we show up pretty well. 
Research and Development—Investment 
9.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: What reports has he received on the level of investment in research and development in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 I have some excellent news. On Monday Statistics New Zealand released new figures showing that there has been a 7 percent increase in research staff since 2004. Total research and development is up 10 percent—[ 
Interruption 
]—the member might listen to this; this is very very good news—to $1.8 billion. Of particular note is that there was a 22 percent increase in health research between 2004 and 2006. This Government is committed to increasing New Zealand’s investment in research and development. That is why we announced in this year’s Budget a $73.7 million Government funding increase and a 15 percent tax credit for private sector research and development spending—outstandingly good policies. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What reports has the Minister received on New Zealand’s level of investment in climate change research? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In August the Government announced an additional $6.7 million investment in climate change research. This extra funding is focused on helping us maintain the effects of climate change in our primary industries our towns our cities and our transport energy and communication infrastructure. In the latest $44 million Marsden Fund round a range of climate change initiatives were funded. These include research into the historic collapse of the Ross Iceshelf in warmer temperatures and the growth of the Antarctic ice sheet over New Zealand and Antarctica 60 million years ago. These kinds of projects give us the kinds of insights we need into the future of climate change. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister agree that improving the level of investment in research and development has long been advocated by New Zealand First and is key to boosting the future prospects of New Zealand exporters by increasing the value and innovation of our traditional food-based exports? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can confirm exactly that. 
Arts Culture and Heritage Associate Minister—Attendance at Events 
10.  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: Does she stand by her statement that “I am very happy to go to any event”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: The Minister says that she is happy to attend any event relating to her portfolio her role in this Labour-led Government or her electorate. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Can the Minister confirm that she has racked up the second-highest ministerial bill for domestic flights since 2000; and how much will it cost the New Zealand taxpayer to offset the carbon emissions she generates from all the domestic travel she currently undertakes? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can confirm that the Minister is extremely well-travelled and also travels extremely well I may say. But in addition to that I am not able to give the member advice on what her travel will cost in terms of carbon emission offsets. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Does the Minister’s focus on seeing every part of New Zealand other than Auckland help explain why she did not follow her own advice to New Zealanders: “We need to reduce our carbon emissions and we need to do it now.” in attending the same Royal New Zealand Ballet performance of  
Trinity  
in two different cities? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister is the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. That involves supporting the performances of the arts in New Zealand. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Does the Minister stand by her statement to  
One News 
 in June last year that she was appointed a Minister not to do any paperwork; if so what exactly was she appointed for other than to generate carbon emissions? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Associate Minister is extraordinarily well-known for supporting the arts culture and heritage in New Zealand. I have heard reports that there has been a recent resurgence of interest by National MPs many of whom are turning up to events but most of whom show no sign of understanding what is going on at them. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: What bold new policy is the Government developing to make her carbon neutral? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the member carries on like that I suspect the Associate Minister will plant him as a means of achieving carbon neutrality. 
Serious Fraud Office—Public Confidence 
11.  
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Ko te awangawanga o Te Tari Hara Taware ka ngaro i te iwi whanui to ratau whakapono mo te mana o te ture (a mo te mana hoki o te Tari Taware) ki te kore nga hara taware pakupaku noa iho nei e tirohia te take e whakaaro nei te Kawanatanga ki te whakakapi i te Tari Taware meina ehara he aha ke te take? 
[ 
Is the Serious Fraud Office concern at the potential of the public to lose confidence in the justice system (and by association the Serious Fraud Office) if low-level fraud is not investigated the reason why the Government plans to replace the Serious Fraud Office; if not what is the reason? 
] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Police 
: No. Indeed in terms of low-level fraud the great bulk of it is probably investigated by the New Zealand Police already. For example over the last 3 years the police have averaged something like 13000 fraud investigations a year. The primary factors are that organised crime has been growing in New Zealand as it has been elsewhere in the world and that since the Serious Fraud Office was established in 1990 the nature and scale of fraud offending have changed. The issue facing the Government therefore was whether to have a separate organised crime agency and a serious fraud office or to combine the functions of both into a larger and more comprehensive office. 
Tariana Turia 
: Can the Minister confirm that the general objectives of the Serious Fraud Office were to prosecute all fraud involving over $500000 all fraud perpetrated by complex means and any fraud of major public concern; if so what explanation can he offer as to the rationale for Serious Fraud Office resources being targeted towards the alleged improper expenditure of $25000 by a Chinese school in Hamilton? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have any information in relation to that. I note that the primary question because of its nature was transferred to the Minister of Police—who of course is not responsible for the Serious Fraud Office—because the question seemed to imply that it was about the reasons for abolishing the Serious Fraud Office and amalgamating it with another agency. That issue of course is one where the carriage has been taken by the Minister of Police. 
Martin Gallagher 
: How will combining the specialist fraud investigation powers of the police with those of the Serious Fraud Office assist in detecting and prosecuting fraud? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government has taken the view that putting the resources of the two agencies together will enhance the capacity for detection and prosecution of fraud. It seems to be common sense to remove any impediments that may exist that prevent New Zealand’s resources in this area from being fully harnessed. Again I would emphasise that in a small country operating two separate specialist agencies is unlikely to achieve the maximum impact. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister agree with David Bradshaw the head of the Serious Fraud Office when he said: “If someone has lost even $10000 to a scam they would regard that as serious fraud in their world.”; and how can that be reconciled with the police telling a person who is chasing $200000 that “fraud and dishonesty are given a lower priority” and that the police were not in a position to investigate that case? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As indicated previously the police investigated something like 13000 fraud cases a year over the last 3 or 4 calendar years but obviously the new agency which will be housed within the police but not subject to the normal police controls in that regard—it is an agency within the police but separate from the police in general—will be taking a much keener interest in the relationship between organised crime and serious fraud. On the particular matter raised I do not have advice. The police of course always have operational independence about which offences they choose to investigate and how. They must have that operational independence; they must not be subject to direction from the Government. 
Tariana Turia 
: What explanation can be offered for the fact that the Court of Appeal cancelled the award of $1 million in costs for the failed prosecution in the Digitech case because the court said it was concerned about the effect on the ability of the Serious Fraud Office to perform its statutory duty of prosecuting complex fraud cases if compensation were awarded against the Serious Fraud Office that was materially significant compared with its budget? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is not appropriate for me to comment on the reasons for the Court of Appeal arriving at any particular decision. 
Simon Power 
: Could the Minister just clear up whether the new organised crime agency will report to the Commissioner of Police whilst it is housed inside the police or whether there will be separate reporting lines to other Ministers; and secondly could the Minister clarify at what point the House will know what particular powers this new agency is to have and whether legislation will be required for the agency to be able to use those powers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The intention at the moment is that reporting will occur to the Commissioner of Police and through him obviously to Ministers. In terms of the powers there are still some issues to be decided around them. Obviously there is some concern about whether some of the current powers of the Serious Fraud Office will need to be transferred over—at least in part and for certain purposes—to the new agency. On the other hand it is fair to say there has been significant concern about the nature of some of those powers for some considerable period of time. It may well be that the Law Commission’s broad proposals around search and surveillance etc. may be sufficient to deal with the powers that the new agency will need. Those remain open questions at this point and will remain open questions I am sure through the select committee process whatever the bill says on this matter when it is introduced because those I think are the most important questions to be decided on this particular matter. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister agree with Dr Cullen’s statement that: “The demarcation between fraud and other forms of organised criminal activity is no longer a clear one.”; if so what assurances can he give to the Mitchell partnership which was allegedly defrauded of farm leases and a large amount of dairy stock and to George Calvert and other investors who were caught up in the Spacetable scam promoted by PricewaterhouseCoopers and were allegedly victims of white-collar fraud that their cases will be duly investigated given the stated specific focus and orientation of the organised crime agency towards organised crime? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is very important that the decision to combine the Serious Fraud Office with the proposed organised crime agency means that the current work of the Serious Fraud Office will continue to be carried out by the new agency. Those functions will not disappear; they will become part of the functions of the new agency. I am sure that Dr Cullen was referring to the fact that there is a continuum now between the Serious Fraud Office and the organised crime agency and that to draw a hard and fast line when one has a specialist agency for organised crime with the Serious Fraud Office would create its own internal difficulties. 
Tariana Turia 
: Can the Minister confirm that the reason for the Government disbanding the Serious Fraud Office is that the Government had lost all faith in the ability integrity and honesty of the Serious Fraud Office; if not what is the real reason behind the decision? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Not at all; absolutely not at all. The Serious Fraud Office has continued to have a high success rate in its prosecutions. There has been some criticism from some outside that it has not chosen to pursue certain cases—and therefore that if you like bolsters its success rate—but I have seen no clear evidence to support that particular claim. The real reasons for disbanding the Serious Fraud Office are firstly that the Government had determined to set up an organised crime agency. That decision was in train. Secondly it is fair to say that the Attorney-General—and of course I am speaking on behalf of the Minister of Police here—has for some time felt uncomfortable that the Serious Fraud Office comes under the Attorney-General because it is not merely a prosecuting agency but an investigating agency as well. The Attorney-General’s view is that that is something of a conflict in his role as Attorney-General. Therefore the possibility arose and discussion occurred as to whether the two agencies should be combined particularly given the fact that there is a change in the chief executive of the Serious Fraud Office due in the near future. 
Crown Minerals—Confidence 
12.  
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Energy 
: Does he have confidence in Crown Minerals; if so why? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I assure the member yet again that the answer is yes but there is always room for improvement. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Does the Minister simply use his signature as a rubber stamp on all mining applications that cross his desk from Crown Minerals or does he seek additional information to satisfy himself of the value of each application; if the latter what did he uncover that justified the extraordinary decision to personally sign off on a 40-year mining permit for Macdonald Investments for an area containing no identified commercial discovery? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: First the member says that I took an extraordinary decision. I certainly did not. It was in line with the information provided and tabled which I hope the member has read. I also say to the member that I take a strong interest in these issues particularly when it is a new and innovative application as the mining application from Macdonald Investments was. 
Dave Hereora 
: Is it true that Crown Minerals’ permitting systems are amongst the best in the world? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Yes it is true. The introduction of an online permitting system in June this year ensures that New Zealand’s permitting systems continue to be not only amongst the best in the world but also amongst the fastest in the world. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Did the Minister when personally granting the mining permit to Macdonald Investments make any reference to its previous work history and lack of achievement and was the Minister aware that even if it had made a discovery it had no financial wherewithal to develop it? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I certainly did inquire into the previous work history. The company had employed a new geologist and undertook a new technical and economic analysis and then came back with a detailed proposal to apply for a mining permit to extract gas from what it believes is a commercially viable gas find. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How many employees does Macdonald Investments have working on the Westgas project that he signed off and of these how many are former employees of Crown Minerals? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: If the member likes to put that down as a written question I will endeavour to find the answer. But given the fact that his primary question led by asking whether I have confidence in Crown Minerals of course I have not come prepared with detailed answers like that. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Does the Minister realise that mining industry participants are all dependent on his using best practice when dispensing his signature; and is he telling the House that his approval of Macdonald Investments is as good as his best practice gets or who or what was it that made it seem such a good idea? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The advice I received showed that the company had put forward a detailed work programme which Mr Auchinvole or any member of the public can view online at their convenience. I would add this. The Pohokura permit which I also personally signed was in fact signed approximately 6 weeks—it may have been as many 8 weeks; I am doing this from memory—after it was applied for. This is a permit worth something like one thousand times more than the Macdonald Investments permit. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Which other Ministers did he discuss Macdonald Investments’ application with prior to his decision to personally approve it? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: From memory I think I discussed it with two Ministers the Hon Trevor Mallard and the Hon David Parker. 
Question No. 11 to Minister 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table two documents. One is a letter from the New Zealand Police to a constituent saying that it unfortunately would not be able to investigate— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
RON MARK 
: The second is a Hansard 
transcript of the select committee meeting where Mr Bradshaw says even a $10000 loss— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.