Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11201] 
Questions to Ministers 
Air New Zealand—Charter Flights 
1. Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Did the chair of the Board of Air New Zealand inform him as shareholding Minister of Air New Zealand’s decision to enter into a commercial contract to fly Australian Defence Force personnel from Australia to Kuwait and the UAE; if so when? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In view of what Air New Zealand’s chairman John Palmer has today described as a “no-surprises policy” with Ministers and of the fact that the Minister has met Mr Palmer on approximately a monthly basis throughout this year is he surprised not to have been briefed at any one of those meetings about Air New Zealand’s plans since he and not the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is the shareholder; and what steps will he be taking to ensure that Air New Zealand’s board does advise him fully on any such situations in the future regardless of what communications it might have with other Ministers or with Government departments or agencies? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Palmer and I met this morning and it was agreed it would have been helpful had I been informed of this matter; and in the future I would expect to be informed of such a matter. But I would say that Air New Zealand approached the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for advice and received advice on that matter But the ministry thought fit not to inform its Minister or indeed any other Minister about the matter. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Minister representing New Zealanders’ shareholding in Air New Zealand be pushing for a management shake-up after the gross violation of the company’s own charter principle—to “champion New Zealand and its people overseas”—that occurred when it ferried Australian troops to an illegal and a catastrophic war which has killed so many Iraqis and caused such devastation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I repeat Air New Zealand sought advice from what it—I think legitimately—considered to be the experts in the matter of New Zealand’s international reputation that is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It was advised that the ministry saw no difficulties and indeed it sought confirmation of that advice in April. I think in that respect Air New Zealand acted properly. It is most unfortunate that officials did not see fit to consult Ministers. Indeed I find it strange that officials did not see fit to think there might be a problem in that regard given the Government’s clear position on the war in Iraq. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Did Mr Palmer advise him today of any other similar future plans to use surplus capacity; if so what are those plans? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Air New Zealand will certainly continue with charter flights and some of those charter flights involve ferrying troops. But it is quite different for example to ferry some US forces from Darwin to Hiroshima compared with ferrying to Kuwait troops who may be presumed on any reasonable basis to have been proceeding to Iraq. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Minister be asking or suggesting to Air New Zealand that it donate the profits of its two charter flights to Kuwait to medical facilities in Iraq to help treat those who have suffered as a result of Australia’s illegal war in Iraq? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that medical personnel were among the people on the plane. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table the Air New Zealand company profile which lists the guiding principle— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Heather Roy 
: Does the Minister accept that this issue instigated by comments made by the Minister of Defence and of Trade that blamed Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials and Air New Zealand has caused volatility in the Air New Zealand share price; and how much has the New Zealand taxpayer lost today from the Air New Zealand share price having dropped around 8 cents a share? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member may not have noticed this but share prices have been dropping worldwide. None of that as far as I am aware is due to any comments made by Mr Goff. 
Air New Zealand—Charter Flights 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What communications if any were received by her or her office or her department regarding Air New Zealand’s charter flights carrying Australian Defence Force personnel to Middle East locations? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Neither the Prime Minister nor her office received any advice regarding this issue prior to its becoming public yesterday. I am advised that officials in various departments including the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet had seen security advice that referred to such flights but none of these officials informed his or her Minister. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister just confirm what she has told the House that not only officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade were advised and did not tell their Minister but officials in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet were aware of these flights and did not inform any politician? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is exactly the case and indeed that of course is what Mr Murdoch indicated today. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can she confirm and does she agree with the range of statements made by Air New Zealand that it took all reasonable steps to inform the Government about what it was doing; if so why has the Government continued to blame Air New Zealand when it now appears that at least two sets of the Government’s most senior officials did not give it the advice it thought it should have? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As Mr Palmer and I discussed this morning it would at least have been helpful if Mr Palmer had notified me as the shareholding Minister about these flights given the potential political context that surrounded those flights. But the fact is that none of those officials informed their Minister; Ministers became aware of this issue yesterday. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it a fact that we are talking about two of 42 different flights in respect of transportation of troops such as between Honiara and Dili; and is it right that those circumstances be understood when one is discussing this issue of what should have been advised to Ministers or not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member is quite correct. Air New Zealand undertakes a range of charter flights that involve the ferrying of troops. The fact that that is happening is nothing unusual in itself; that includes the ferrying of New Zealand troops in some particular circumstances—and American troops and Australian troops. What is different about this case of course is that any reasonable presumption was that those troops were likely to be proceeding to some form of active service within Iraq. The New Zealand Government unlike the National Party has a clear position on the war in Iraq. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade might reasonably have concluded that it should have given different advice to Air New Zealand. I understand that Mr Murdoch now accepts that and has apologised for the advice he gave. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade knew all about this and apparently did not tell its Minister and that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet knew all about this and did not tell its Minister what other departments are likely to have known all about it and not told their Ministers; and why does the story bear such a startling resemblance to the way in which the Labour Government’s departments handled all the knowledge about David Benson-Pope’s interventions and never told their Ministers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The officials were those officials who come from departments that sit on the appropriate officials committee around security matters and I am therefore not prepared to go further into that for security reasons. What is absolutely clear is that indeed Ministers were not informed. I am afraid that the member will have to accept something he may not like. This is a cock-up by officials not a conspiracy by Ministers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it the Government’s position that it would have been against such flights in 2003 2004 2005 2006 and 2007; or for them in 2003 and against them in 2007; which position does the Government have on this issue? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government’s position is very clear. We have opposed throughout the war in Iraq. We do not support active involvement in that war. We do not believe that participation by Air New Zealand the New Zealand flag carrier in ferrying troops to that war is appropriate. But we assume that Mr Key would have supported it in 2003 and changed his mind in 2007 and that the National Party caucus would not know what its position was at any point in time. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is it that this morning the Government has allowed Simon Murdoch the chief executive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to take all of the blame for this by himself in his own public statements when the Prime Minister has now revealed to the House that the officials committee on security knew about it—a committee made up of senior officials from a range of Government departments; why did the Government not tell the public that this morning instead of blaming one person and when are the rest of them going to apologise if that is now the standard? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because the responsible officials in this case were those in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It was the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that was approached for advice by Air New Zealand; no other organisation was. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade informed the appropriate officials committee about this matter but the responsibility remained with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade alone in that regard. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Minister confirm whether he has seen this report a transcript from 95bFM of an interview with Mr Key today on this very topic that we are talking about today; and can he confirm that it is impossible to tell from the answers to questions put to Mr Key whether he is for Air New Zealand doing it against Air New Zealand doing it or neither for nor against? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister can comment on reports but not on matters of another party’s policies or positions. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Nothing would surprise me. If Mr Key had been on the flight I assume he would have had an open return ticket—undecided whether to come back. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm what I think he is telling us in answers to these questions that the information that Air New Zealand had approached the Government and asked for advice about these flights was known to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that it was communicated to the officials committee related to security matters—a group of the most senior and experienced officials on these matters across the whole of Government—that that information will be in the papers related to that committee and that none of them communicated any of it to any Minister; and how is it that the Government’s most senior set of officials on security seem to be unaware of the Government’s principal foreign policy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I cannot understand how the ministry did not believe that the appropriate advice to Air New Zealand was that this was not consistent with New Zealand’s national interests. But the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is the body responsible for primary advice around the issues of New Zealand’s national interests and diplomatic standing. I heard a member previously mention the Civil Aviation Authority. That authority is not an expert on New Zealand’s international standing or diplomatic interests. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm that Simon Murdoch is a very experienced civil servant with a significant degree of integrity and proficiency who has given his apology without conditions and that because of that it should be accepted given that part of his track record of public service was to be one of the few people in the Bolger administration who made it look halfway competent or proficient? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am not sure whether the second part of the question is in order but the first part is. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Murdoch has been a good and faithful servant to successive Governments within this country in a wide variety of roles. [ 
Interruption 
] The problem with the member is that he has to accuse Mr Murdoch of being a liar if he says that Mr Murdoch does not accept responsibility for making an error. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that the Minister has told us that the committee of senior officials related to security all knew about this did the Minister of Defence Phil Goff know how extensively Government officials had discussed this matter when he went on TV3 last night on  
Campbell Live 
 and three times said that Air New Zealand had not approached the Government—in an attempt to blame that company—when the Government’s own officials knew all about it and should not he apologise to Air New Zealand now? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I do not think Mr Goff was aware of those facts at that particular point in time. But of course I do note that National Party members whacked into Air New Zealand yesterday as well before the facts were out and they seem to have forgotten that fact very conveniently today. 
Heather Roy 
: Is Air New Zealand an independently operating commercial airline operating on standard commercial air routes and under internationally accepted practices to which New Zealand is signatory; if this is the case can she make it plain to this House on what matters her Government will be interfering in commercial decisions and when the airline will be left to operate independently? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The airline is indeed a commercial operator. Of course the route from Australia to Kuwait is not one of Air New Zealand’s more normal routes for operations particularly given the assumption about where the passengers were going subsequently. Air New Zealand remains independent and I have emphasised today in my statements as the shareholding Minister that I will not be directing the airline in matters such as this. Mr Palmer has made it clear that if he had had different advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in January or indeed in April of this year Air New Zealand might well have come to a different conclusion in its interest—and its interest as New Zealand’s flag carrier. 
Hon Bill English 
: What confidence can the public have in a Government that cannot execute its own foreign policy where the two most senior civil servants in the public sector have had collective amnesia and have had to own up to defend Ministers where the Government-owned airline is by the Government’s own description politically out of control and where its own attempt to make capital out of the Iraqi war has blown up in its face? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Almost every one of those statements is inaccurate. Air New Zealand is not politically out of control. It sought advice received that advice and acted—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member who asked the question was given the courtesy of having that question heard in silence with just one or two interventions. The barracking is starting again. I can see members at the back cupping their ears trying to hear the answer. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Air New Zealand sought advice from the appropriate authorities received that advice and acted upon it. So it was not politically out of control. Secondly the two senior officials have not had amnesia at all. Unfortunately for them they have remembered very clearly what they did and said and one of them has had to apologise as a consequence of that. Thirdly this country’s position on Iraq is clear. We have no troops fighting there. Under National they would be there fighting and Air New Zealand would no doubt be ferrying our troops backwards and forwards to the battlefields. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a series of articles from the city in which John Palmer resides that is from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 showing the opinions of the New Zealand people towards the Iraq war and that he did not need to— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Immigration—Reform 
3.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What progress has been made on the Government’s immigration reform programme? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I can report that the Government’s immigration change programme is based on three pillars all of which are making good progress. Firstly I have recently introduced the Immigration Bill to the House. This bill combined with the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act will provide a solid legislative base for the immigration system now and into the future. Secondly a core policy framework has been established to assist in the review of key immigration policies. For example I have recently made well-received announcements on the new active-investor category and changes to the skilled migrant category. Thirdly the Immigration Business Transformation project will help us to attract the migrants we need and keep out those we do not want by enhancing the operations of Immigration New Zealand. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the new bill? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have seen an editorial in the  
New Zealand Herald  
headlined “Law secures balance on borders”. That editorial goes on to state that the outcome of the bill “is a law that strikes a far better balance in the cause of ensuring this country can quickly and efficiently determine who comes and goes.” 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does this change in policy reflect comments made over many years by New Zealand First in respect of the inappropriateness of a whole range of immigration policies pursued by both Labour and National Governments and is that last comment from the  
New Zealand Herald  
really it flying a white flag and apologising for calling us xenophobic and racist? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am pleased to note that I have had indications from a wide range of parties that they are likely to support the Immigration Bill and I would like to express the appreciation of the Government for the support. I can confirm that the New Zealand First Party has indicated its support and we appreciate the liaison we have had with that party over the years. Unfortunately I cannot take responsibility for all of the editorials in the  
New Zealand Herald. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What further reports has the Minister seen? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have seen a range of positive reports from business and refugee groups amongst others. I quote from a Business New Zealand press release: “A strengthened updated and fit-for-purpose immigration law that upholds border security while facilitating the arrival of skilled talented people is in the interests of business as well as in the general public interest.” I have also seen endorsements from the Refugee and Migrant Service which said “plans to tighten up the appeal system to just one independent body would be a good move.” 
I seek leave to table an editorial from the  
New Zealand Herald  
from 10 August 2007— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table a press release from Business New Zealand headlined “Immigration reform deserves careful scrutiny” praising the bill. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table a media article from Television New Zealand that quotes positive statements from the Refugee and— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a very insightful document called the confidence and supply agreement between New Zealand First and the Government. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Air New Zealand—Charter Flights 
4.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: What communications if any were made to him or his office by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade regarding Air New Zealand’s discussion with the ministry about carrying Australian Defence Force personnel to Middle East locations? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 My office was informed yesterday morning that an article was due to appear in the next day or so about the charter flights. Today at midday I received a report from the ministry’s chief executive on the same subject. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Minister assure the House that the answer he has just given is in accord with the best recollections of his officials; that is do his ministry officials absolutely accept that they failed to advise him of Air New Zealand’s plans as they should have done? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: To the chief executive officer’s great credit he has accepted that he made a mistake. He having made a mistake which has been identified as not telling me—[ 
Interruption 
]—and which is what this issue turns on not on a whole lot of ballyhoo and bumf from the member over there that is where the matter rests. [ 
Interruption 
] That is where the matter rests; he says he made a mistake in not telling me. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can I ask the Minister again whether we can be assured that the response he has given to the House this afternoon is in accord with the best recollections of his officials; that is do they absolutely accept that they failed to advise him of Air New Zealand’s plans as they should have done? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Mr Simon Murdoch has sent a report to me which is now in the hands of the Prime Minister the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Defence. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s not the question. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Well I am answering the question if that member will keep his mouth shut for 5 seconds. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister is the process of answering the question. Interjections only create disorder. I do not want to have the answer heard in silence—I want to give members an appropriate opportunity to comment—but when there is an abuse of that opportunity then yes it will be heard in silence. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Mr Murdoch says: “I have reviewed my actions in handling the information available to me in January. In hindsight I accept that even though the information was partial and contingent I had the opportunity to pass it on to the Minister of Foreign Affairs by way of a heads-up and I did not do so. That was an error on my part for which I now apologise.” That is where the matter should rest. 
Keith Locke 
: In giving the green light to Air New Zealand was the ministry at least in some measure acting on signals from Government Ministers such as the opposition of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to a rapid withdrawal of American and Australian troops from Iraq Helen Clark’s reluctance to bring up the issue of the war when she visited Washington and the ongoing reluctance of Ministers to openly criticise the war in Iraq and the human rights violations at Abu Ghraib prison and the Guantanamo Bay detention centre? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Three statements were just made purporting to be in the form of a question. All three of those statements are demonstrably palpably false and they should not be presented in this Parliament by any self-respecting member of Parliament let alone by a political party. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Minister assure the House that at no stage did any ministry official communicate information to him or his office about the planned Air New Zealand charters? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: There was a group of officials one of whom was the defence liaison in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade who could be construed as being responsible for reporting to my office. But having looked at all the information Mr Murdoch to his great credit and even regarding the circumstances which might be ones of amelioration that are redeeming of him nevertheless says: “At the end of the day I made the mistake and I apologise.” 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That wasn’t the question. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That being the case if there was any material communication that would not go to the core of his apology the question would be relevant. But of course it is not. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the House have an assurance that at no stage did any official from his ministry communicate in writing or in any other form with him or his office about the Air New Zealand charters? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I have had a chance to review this matter with my officials and the head of foreign affairs over the last 24 hours. To the best of everyone’s recollections there were no communications to the Minister of Foreign Affairs or to his office. Otherwise this issue would never have arisen in the first place. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: How does the Minister reconcile his statements in the media last night and this morning that the ministry was given little information by Air New Zealand and that the company had also failed to get back to the ministry as it had expected with the statement by Air New Zealand’s chairman John Palmer this morning that all the relevant details were provided to the ministry including details of the flights when they would take place and what they comprised? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That last phrase is the most apposite part of the question. What they comprised was never advised to foreign affairs—that is who was on the plane their designation and description and where they were going to go when they arrived in Kuwait never described to foreign affairs. It happens to be a fact that had foreign affairs known that I think its reaction would have been different. However because of circumstances that was a matter of confidentiality in respect of the contract itself and I can see how these circumstances have arisen. The point is that a mistake was made. A lesson has been learnt. We will not repeat that mistake in the future. 
Oil Exploration—Tui Area 
5.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What reports if any has he received on the benefits to New Zealand of the Tui Area oil development project? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 There has already been $330 million invested in this project. Dollars spent are of course multiplied in the economy and that means jobs—skilled jobs in engineering. Four hundred and fifty people have been employed directly during the development plus there are 70 permanent roles and a new apprenticeship training scheme. Tui Area is expected to yield 30 million barrels of oil and at today’s prices that is worth about $2.8 billion. 
Maryan Street 
: How does the Tui oil project contribute to the objectives the Government is seeking to progress in the New Zealand Energy Strategy? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In the transition to lower emissions and increased renewable energy we will have reducing but still significant use of fossil fuels. What is important is that each country takes responsibility for its emissions. Japan takes responsibility for the coal it imports from New Zealand and we take responsibility for the emissions from our oil use whether the oil comes from Saudi Arabia or New Zealand. 
Electoral Finance Bill—Minister's Statement 
6.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the Electoral Finance Bill that “if a document seeks to support the election or to oppose the election of a given candidate or party it is within the context of the bill; if it does not it is not.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Justice 
: Yes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister mean to tell the House that despite having notice of this question today and having been pretty much asked it yesterday he still does not understand that the Labour Government’s Electoral Finance Bill includes all sorts of expressions of political views in clause 5(1)(a)(iii) and that it is absolutely not confined to the matters he believes it is confined to? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the Minister was very clear in his answer yesterday and the member has quoted it back to him. If a document seeks to support the election or to oppose the election of a given candidate or party it is within the context of the bill; if it does not it is not. The member received that answer yesterday and I urge him to take the advice he has been given repeatedly by the Minister of Justice and that is to make use of the select committee process and to make his arguments through other members of the National Party who are on the select committee because that is the place to have that kind of debate. 
Ann Hartley 
: What is the intent of this bill and why is the National Party so outraged about it? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The intent of the bill is to provide a fair electoral system that is protected from undue influence and abuse. The bill contains proposals for reform and as has been said before it is the role of a select committee to take the time to look at how to refine this issue. On the second matter there may well be some difficulties that the National Party has in relation to spending during the last election that it does not want to talk about— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister has no responsibility for the National Party. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why do the Minister and the Prime Minister keep quoting Britain and Canada when Canada has a broad definition of the political advertisement but it applies for only 6 weeks roughly not for the whole of election year and Britain has a narrow definition of electoral advertisement that applies over a whole year; and why does the Minister keep making misleading statements that our law is like that of Britain and Canada when it is not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the point being made is that New Zealand is pulling itself into line with jurisdictions like those and there has been discussion about the fact that between Canada and the United Kingdom there are a range of ways of addressing this issue. We are making the effort to address the issue in this country and the select committee is an excellent place for the member to make these points. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Are there fundamental principles in this bill such as a ban on political policy being bought by outsiders or political promotion being facilitated by outsiders or worse still unhealthy— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Have you paid the money back yet? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Listen loony tune take control of yourself. Take your pills before you come down to the House not halfway through question time. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Have you paid up? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am serious. I am not a medical doctor but I have seen those symptoms before and far too frequently in your case. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. If members make interjections then they do get responses to them and that is what creates disorder. So would the member please just ask his question and would the interventions be kept to a moderate level. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm that some of the principles behind this bill include bans on political policy being bought by outsiders or on political promotion being bought by outsiders and bans on the unhealthy development of political patronage facilitated by outsiders purely because they have the money; and can he confirm that the objective of the bill therefore is to have free fair elections? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member has quite rightly drawn attention to the fact that this bill is something the entire House should be interested in because it is about a fair electoral system free from undue influence and abuse. He has quite rightly listed the very things that concerned many people during the last election campaign and this is a chance for the National Party to put that right. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that what the Government has done is pick out the most sweeping aspects of both the Canadian and the UK legislation—that is the broad definition of political advertisements that applies in Canada and the very long regulated period that applies in the UK—and created an anti-democratic drift-net that is repressive by comparison with either Canada or the UK because it incorporates the worst elements of each? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does that mean that the Minister did not read his own handout that he put around the press gallery the other day which describes exactly those features of both systems but neglects to say that New Zealand picked the broad definition of advertising in Canada and the lengthy regulated period from the UK; and when is he going to stop making dishonest and misleading statements about the relevance of those two jurisdictions? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The answer is no. I simply invite the member who is so outraged about this issue to take it to the select committee—and he can sort out the GST issue while he is there as well. 
Hon Bill English 
: What is going on in the Labour Cabinet which is meant to be full of so many top-line political operators given that it managed to put together—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will please leave the Chamber. That was an entirely inappropriate intervention. 
David Bennett withdrew from the Chamber. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. Would the Hon Bill English start again please. 
Hon Bill English 
: What is going on in the Labour Cabinet which is meant to be full of so many top-line political operators given that it has put together legislation that has no support in Parliament from other parties and is now not even supported by the Prime Minister who chaired the Cabinet meeting that signed it off as Labour’s policy? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This legislation provides all parties with an opportunity to ensure that they have a fair electoral system without fear of influence or abuse. Why the member would want to persist in arguing about the opportunity to sort out issues like the Exclusive Brethren and GST remains a mystery. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Can the Minister advise the House whether one of the intentions of this bill is to stop anonymous persons acting from fictitious addresses backed by a million dollars with deceptive advertising the day before the election from trying to defeat legitimate candidates? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can confirm that and this of course is one of the fears of all right-thinking—and left-thinking—New Zealanders. They do not want to see a rerun of the kind of subterfuge that ran around during the last election where people were inundating the electorate with material then operating out of addresses that no one could find. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does this bill contemplate in terms of political advertising and appropriate expenditure that it would be appropriate for someone who is a member of Parliament to receive a $50000 grant for apparel and a cosmetic makeover— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Tell us about Simunovich. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —which no doubt Nick should have got as well—of the type that outsiders paid to Ruth Richardson in the National Party; would that be appropriate under this legislation? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Those kinds of arguments can be undertaken during the select committee hearings. That is why I say to members opposite that the fear raised by the New Zealand First leader is that people may well seek to influence elections in that way. For example they may want to apply make-up to Bill English in order to make him look like a Southern Man and that could be an example of undue influence on the electorate. 
Hon Bill English 
: When will the Government put up someone who was at the Cabinet meeting and who has read the papers and actually understands the bill—for instance the provision that means that if the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union has one single member who is under the age of 18 it will be banned from registering as a third party and therefore cannot spend more than $5000 in election year? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I cannot hear. I do not know whether there is something wrong with the sound system today. We will have this answer in silence. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: All I can say to the member is that the bill has a fair intent. It is one I am sure he supports. He would like to clean up a number of issues around the National Party. The efforts he can put into this are properly put in at the select committee and I am sure the whole House will welcome his contribution. 
Taser Guns—Mental Health Problems 
7.  
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Has she been advised of the statement from Marie Dyhrberg that “the taser is increasingly being deployed against mentally disturbed individuals”; if so what research has been undertaken about the long-term effects of Taser guns on people with mental health problems? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I understand that Marie Dyhrberg has made such statements. I am advised by the Ministry of Health that there has not been a considerable body of research done on this issue either here or overseas. However it must be remembered that the Taser trial is designed to discover whether it is a useful non-lethal alternative for police. 
Hone Harawira 
: Would she agree that the reduction in violent offences against the police recorded in the 2006 police annual report from 97 assaults in 1996-97 to only 84 in the 2005-06 year is very positive; in light of this downward trend why has it been necessary to introduce Tasers? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Any reduction in assaults on police is very encouraging indeed. However the use of the Taser is not solely for the protection of New Zealand police. In fact in the cases where it has been used it has been for the protection of other individuals or the individuals themselves. 
Hone Harawira 
: What response does the Minister have to the statement made by the operational support manager of the Taser gun trial Superintendent John Rivers at a mediation meeting with the Maori Party that Maori and Pacific Island people are more than half of the subjects of Taser use simply because: “Maori and Pacific people have a greater propensity to commit violent crimes.” and that that comment was not indicative of racism as “there is no racism in policing”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think the New Zealand Police has gone to incredible lengths in recent years to ensure that the police take a very very good approach to people in the community whether Pakeha Maori Pacific Island Asian or others. A lot of training and a lot of effort have gone into the police to ensure they police for the good of all New Zealanders. I think Police National Headquarters would be very disappointed if that was thought to be the view of the police. I do not believe it is. However that is not to say that there are not individuals in the police as there are in this Parliament who hold different views. 
Hone Harawira 
: Having attended that meeting I heard that quote myself so I will continue and ask whether the view that “Maori and Pacific people have a greater propensity to commit violent crimes.” is a standard part of police officer training; if not what action will be taken to advise Superintendent John Rivers of this position? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I do not believe that that is part of police training. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a statement from the New Zealand College of Mental Health Nurses of 1 June 2006 that says nurses are worried about the targeting of individual— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
State Services Commissioner—Environment Ministry Appointment 
8.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Did Dr Mark Prebble keep file notes of his discussions or interactions with Mr Hugh Logan regarding Madeleine Setchell; if so were these given to Iain Rennie when he was compiling the briefing on Ministry for the Environment employment issues that she released on 20 July? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I have not asked Dr Prebble whether he kept file notes on his discussions or interactions with Mr Logan as the facts pertaining to Ms Setchell are subject to an independent investigation by Mr Don Hunn and that investigation must be allowed to take its course. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister stand by her statement to the House that she has regular fortnightly meetings with the State Services Commissioner or his representative; if so does it concern her that this matter was not raised with her at the two meetings she would have had with the commissioner or his representative between 28 May and 1 July? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I stand by my statement that I meet on a regular basis every fortnight unless something happens with the State Services Commissioner and his executive team. All I can affirm to this House is that I did not hear anything of this matter before the date that I have already informed this House of. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister expect us to believe that she has no concern about the fact that although she had meetings at least twice with the State Services Commissioner or his representative during a period when the State Services Commissioner Mr Logan Mr Rennie Mr Hurring from David Benson-Pope’s office David Benson-Pope himself numerous staff from inside the Ministry for the Environment numerous staff in the Beehive and most certainly the Leader of the Opposition’s office all knew about this issue somehow the State Services Commissioner managed not to bother to mention it to her? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I stand by what I have said because those are the facts. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister stand by her statement to the House: “in order to maintain a relationship of confidence between the Minister and chief executive the Minister is entitled to expect to be informed in advance of any issues or difficulties relating to the agency.”; and if she still believes in her statement made to the House can she still express confidence in Dr Prebble who apparently kept her in the dark for 5 weeks? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Tell the truth. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take exception to the comments made by Nick Smith and I request that he be asked to withdraw and apologise. But also Madam Speaker yesterday we had to listen to a long-winded point of order from the National Party about interjections from the Government side of the House when questions were being asked and I have to tell you that Nick Smith has been making those sorts of nasty interjections across the House for month and months. Then the Opposition wonders why there is retaliation. I think that either it stops here or you will continue to see the sort of interaction that you do not like and that you try to stop in this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. The member has taken exception. I did not hear the precise nature of the comment but exception has been taken. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The three words I used were “Tell the truth.” During the course of the last fortnight. I have heard Mr Goff almost systematically on the end of Government Ministers’ answers to the House say: “Tell the truth Mr Key. Tell the truth.” The Minister who has taken offence has talked about retaliation. I have to say I have listened constantly to that phrase from Government members without interjecting for 2 weeks I use it once and she gets all prickly. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has made his point. The member of course could have objected but he did not. The matter has now been dealt with. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked a question then the Minister took a very lengthy point of order. I wonder whether I can re-ask the question so the House can follow— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the Minister responded and I just did not hear the response. I ask her to repeat the answer. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The answers to the questions—and there were two questions—are yes; and yes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Which of the following possibilities does she think is most likely: first that file notes were not kept by Dr Prebble second that file notes were kept but were not passed on to Iain Rennie who was preparing a report for the Minister or third that file notes were kept but that they deliberately omitted any reference to ministerial involvement in the Madeleine Setchell matter in order to protect David Benson-Pope and quite possibly other Labour Ministers as well as him? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I will wait for the facts to be established by Mr Don Hunn. I do not intend to be engaged in the sort of kangaroo court that Mr Brownlee would like to engage in for nothing other than political purposes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Now that the Minister has told the House that she had no fewer than two meetings with the State Services Commissioner during a period when almost everybody in this complex knew about this matter except apparently her can she tell us whether it is now standard practice for senior public servants to no longer keep file notes or alert Government Ministers on matters of significant political interest such as the Madeleine Setchell matter or Air New Zealand’s flying of Aussie troops to Iraq; and is that because the Labour Government would rather there was not a paper trail and particularly perhaps because the Minister of Foreign Affairs would be happy there was no paper trail to involve him in such matters? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No; and no. 
Iran—Amnesty International and Christian Converts 
9.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he agree with Amnesty International that it is unsafe for proven Christian converts to return to Iran; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 My agreement or otherwise is immaterial. Although I respect the work of Amnesty International determination of these matters does not lie with politicians or with interest groups but with a well-respected independent appeals process that has access to all of the facts and hears the case in a fair and unbiased manner. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not think the Minister has addressed the question because the situation in Iran is certainly relevant if people are going to be deported there. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister did address the question. 
Keith Locke 
: Is the Minister really going to stand by and watch Iranian Ali Panah die due to a hunger strike or be deported back to Iran where Amnesty International so rightly believes he will not be safe? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As the member well knows it is not possible for me to go into the details of an individual case but it is well known that the gentleman concerned has a number of options that would allow him to leave New Zealand at any time. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Is it always essential that people served with removal orders are involuntarily returned to their country of origin? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: By no means. The vast majority of people who are served with removal orders depart New Zealand voluntarily to either their home country or a third country. They can leave at any time to any country that they have a right of entry to. I note that a  
Scoop 
 article recently published a report noting that: “Mr Panah could sign a paper that would authorise his deportation back to the last port he had exited before arriving in New Zealand.” 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister aware that under the law of Iran it is illegal to convert from Islam to Christianity that the maximum penalty is death and that such executions occasionally occur; if so is it not unconscionable to deport Iranians now living in New Zealand who have so converted and whose conversion is genuine and verifiable? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes; and I would expect the widely respected Refugee Status Appeals Authority was also well aware of that fact when it reached its decision on his appeal. By implication from the member’s question if I were to hold as a matter of policy that no Christian convert could be returned to the Republic of Iran I suspect that the New Zealand churches would swell in membership. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that allowing people to remain here simply because they have allegedly changed their religion will make us appear like a soft touch; and will he confirm that that is not the impression New Zealand wants to give to the wider world? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Government policy in this area seeks to strike a proper balance between a fair and humane approach that is respectful of everybody’s human rights and our obligations under refugee law. At the same time if we have established a proper legal process with due appeal rights then we must abide by that process when decisions have been made. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a speech from 30 October on the deteriorating situation in Iran in relation to Christians by New Zealand’s UN representative Rosemary Banks. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table an article from  
Scoop 
 news on Friday 10 August which notes a report that Mr Panah and his lawyer were offered a deal— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister offer the House his view as to whether he is concerned by a situation when someone arrived here 4 years ago was denied refugee status yet some time later—4 years later—declares he is a Christian and demands to stay; is the Minister comfortable with that position? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I can make no comment on any individual case and I would not seek to enter an opinion on the genuineness of any individual’s conversion to Christianity. But the member and his party are supporting a bill that will soon be debated in this House that will tidy up an appeals system that many commentators have held to be excessively open-ended. 
Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Official Information Act Request 
10.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Did the Ministry of Health receive a copy of any transcripts or recordings of meetings involving the whistleblower or anybody else in response to the ministry’s Official Information Act request to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board of 27 April 2006? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Health) 
: 
 The ministry advises that it has never received a transcript or recording of meetings involving the whistleblower or anyone else. However it does have a file note from the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board that records the essence of one of those meetings and a copy of which I am advised is in the public arena. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister aware that discussions between the whistleblower and a senior manager at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board were recorded covertly without the whistleblower’s knowledge; and would he have expected such recordings to be surrendered in response to the ministry’s request for all information? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Again I am advised that this issue is being dealt with under employment law and any comment would be inappropriate. Suffice it to say however that the information given to this House and the public of New Zealand by Mr Ryall stating that the whistleblower was the only employee of the district health board to lose employment was totally incorrect. There were I am advised 28 redundancies in the district health board’s restructuring exercise. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Would the Minister like to share with the House how many of those 28 people reapplied for new jobs within the district health board and got them and how many of the eight people in management who lost their jobs and had to reapply for new jobs got those new jobs—would the answer be everybody except one? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I cannot say that I have all the information but I have— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Caught out! 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Dr Nick Smith says that as I do not have all of the information I have been caught out. He never has any information at all on any subject! I am advised that there were a total of 47 redundancies: seven management and administration 21 clinical and 19 management and administration. Of those I understand that some reapplied for their positions. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Did anyone else in the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board receive a copy of a transcript of the recordings; if so who? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have no information on that matter that would enable me to answer the member’s question. If he wants to put down a written question I will see whether I can get an answer for him. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If the chief executive was given a copy of the transcript would the Acting Minister have expected that that transcript would have been surrendered to the Ministry of Health under the Official Information Act? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As I said in the original answer a transcript of the conversation between the acting chief executive at the time and the person named as the whistleblower is in the hands of the ministry but I understand that it is also in the hands of the member and is on the public record. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: As a copy of the transcript was handed to the chief executive of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and it was not surrendered to the ministry as part of the Official Information Act request is the only reason for the document not being surrendered the fact that it no longer existed? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As I have indicated already the Ministry of Health has a document that is in the format of a transcript of that conversation the member has a copy of it and I have not the faintest idea why he has asked that question three times. 
Youth Parliament—Success 
11.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Youth Affairs 
: What reports has she received on the success of Youth Parliament 2007? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 Alongside the many positive media reports a report outlining the procedures of Youth Parliament 2007 was presented and tabled in the House on Tuesday 14 August. This report details the activities that contributed to Youth Parliament 2007 including an advance copy of the  
Hansard 
 for both sitting days the Household Response to Climate Change Bill 2007 and the 10 select committee reports. The report will be made publicly available on the Youth Parliament website by the end of the week. 
Darren Hughes 
: Can the Minister tell the House how she intends to build on the contribution of the Youth Parliament? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Of course; I know that a lot of young people are interested in this answer. I have directed the Ministry of Youth Development to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of Youth Parliament 2007 and to report to me about proposals for future improvement and development of Youth Parliaments. I expect to receive this report from the ministry by the end of August. I have also asked the ministry to work with a range of agencies to develop a broader youth citizenship work programme. This will focus on a range of initiatives to enhance understanding and foster greater democratic participation by young people. Active citizenship is what it is all about. 
Child Youth and Family—Confidence 
12.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Does she have confidence in Child Youth and Family? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 Yes I do and further I support the hard and difficult work that Child Youth and Family and its social workers do. Last year Child Youth and Family received 73326 notifications. I think that level and type of work should be recognised and supported not constantly undermined as that member does. 
Anne Tolley 
: How can the Minister have such confidence when on her watch around 20 percent of all foster children in Child Youth and Family care including 111 babies were shunted from foster home to foster home more than three times last year despite the Minister admitting there was no lack of resources nor lack of foster parents to prevent that damaging treatment of vulnerable children? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It is very frustrating to hear the constant misrepresentation of the movement of children who are in the care of foster families. That member was advised of the facts at the select committee and despite that she continues to misrepresent the facts. Those movements include such things as a weekend in respite care. Frankly if one has a very demanding and challenging young person or child living in one’s home a weekend’s respite—which to and fro counts as two movements—is the difference between make or break for that family rather than a disadvantage either to the child or to the foster family. 
Lynne Pillay 
: How has this hard and difficult work been resolved? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am pleased to inform the House that under this Government we have increased the funding for Child Youth and Family from $291.8 million to $468.3 million now. That increase pays for more hard-working social workers to take care of our children and young people in need. However that type of investment in New Zealand families would be cut by the National Party which described the increase in the number of social workers as a “bloated bureaucracy”. 
Anne Tolley 
: How can the Minister have such confidence when on her watch last year Child Youth and Family placed two young girls aged 8 and 11 in the full-time care of their father a man with 36 convictions including 14 for peeping two for indecent assault and five for assault and who in 2003 just 3 years ago Child Youth and Family would not even allow to have supervised visits with those girls yet now he is a full-time carer? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I would be very happy to give that member full information about any case rather than to have her rely on partial information and misinformation that she picks up from the media. If the member for example would like to recommit herself and the party she represents to working with every other party in this House on the cross-party family violence prevention task force she might learn more about the facts and less about troublemaking. 
Anne Tolley 
: How can the Minister have such confidence when on her watch Nia Glassie’s mother had an older child removed by Child Youth and Family after the child suffered non-accidental head injuries but Child Youth and Family did not monitor the mother to prevent abuse of subsequent children? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The member knows from reports in the media and from my responses to questions that no call for help was made by anyone in either the family or the neighbourhood in regard to Nia Glassie. If anything could have been done by the department to prevent that tragedy it would have been done. The fact that so much abuse occurred and so many adults knew of it and not one single person went to either the police or the department for help beggars belief. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have listened carefully to the last three questions and the answers given. In each case the questioner interjected continually all the way through the answer being given by the Minister. If it is good enough for a question to be asked presumably the person asking that question should remain silent while the answer is given. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member on this. Throughout this question time I have asked for some tolerance. We will have the rest of the questions and answers in silence. 
Anne Tolley 
: How can the Minister have such confidence when on her watch the mother of the Kahui twins had a previous history with Child Youth and Family but was not monitored nor red flagged to prevent further abuse of any subsequent children and a discussion amongst Child Youth and Family staff regarding the twins did not even result in her file being searched for any previous history? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind members that the answer is to be heard in silence. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The member was a member of the cross-party family violence prevention task force and at that time she received a lot of detailed information about the intervention that was offered to and received by the Kahui family. It is regrettable that she has chosen to forget that information—or perhaps she does not remember it. Frankly I share her frustration about parents who have abused children and subsequently go on to have other children and abuse them but it is very difficult for the department or anyone else to be so interventionist as to prevent pregnancies tempting though it might be for all of us. 
Anne Tolley 
: How can the Minister have such confidence when after 8 years of a Labour Government Child Youth and Family cannot recognise a re-notification of a child it has already dealt with; it does not monitor or red flag abusive parents who have had children removed from their care; and it is not even able to share information amongst the courts and the police; why can the Minister not admit that the Government is totally incompetent in dealing with growing child abuse? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: All three of those allegations in regard to the ability to identify re-notifications the ability to red flag and information sharing are wrong. I again invite the member to rejoin the cross-party family violence prevention task force; if she had a single good idea about what more we could do in our investment to prevent child abuse that idea would be welcomed. I have not heard one single positive contribution from the member but I live in hope.