Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11645] 
Questions to Ministers 
Food Industry—Nutrition and Obesity 
1. ANN HARTLEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What initiatives does the Government have under way in the food industry to improve nutrition and reduce obesity? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The Government has an accord with the industry which is now some years old and has started to deliver some really good results. Nestlé for example has removed 73 tonnes of trans-fatty acids from all of its products out of its Wiri factory and Hubbard’s Foods has removed 42 tonnes of sugar from breakfast cereals. In addition the National Heart Foundation’s Pick the Tick programme is also working—33 tonnes of salt have gone from breads and cereals and fibre has been increased in over 100 products. 
Ann Hartley 
: Noting that progress is the Minister satisfied that it is sufficient; if not how can we do even better? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No it is nowhere sufficient. It is however a really good start. More is obviously needed although the industry warns that people’s tastes change slowly. We are working with the industry to settle some realistic targets with it. I should acknowledge that Coca-Cola Amatil and Frucor have decided to remove all full-sugar drinks from schools—a world first. 
Ann Hartley 
: Has the Minister seen any expert commentary on the Health Committee’s report on the inquiry into obesity and type 2 diabetes? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have. Robert Quigley a public health specialist—the gentleman whom John Key rushed to quote incorrectly—earlier this year on children who skip breakfast said: “The National Party’s response within the Health Committee Report on the Inquiry into Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes is simple-minded”. He said: “It’s almost like the National Party want to make our Kiwi kids fatter—they really couldn’t have got it more wrong.” 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Has the Minister seen any reports from experts who are not Labour Party supporters who say that the Minister cannot reverse the obesity problem unless he changes sociocultural attitudes to food; and does he understand that the Government’s agenda of regulation compulsion and control lacks insight into the underlying causes of obesity? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member is correct in saying that the causes of obesity are multifactorial. The point that I think Mr Quigley was making is that he has come to the view that National’s approach to this issue is one that is based on cant and hypocrisy. It is one that is full of hand-wringing but one that ensures that nothing will ever be done. That is not good enough. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Was that an acceptable answer? Was it within the bounds of what is reasonable in Parliament? Were all of the words used by the Minister appropriate for Parliament? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is the member taking objection to the words that were used? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I am seeking guidance because if the Minister gets away with that answer then we will most certainly take your lead and use that sort of approach as well. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The reason I am hesitating is that I am trying to reflect on the answer again. Certainly Mr Brownlee is correct—if there was a personal reflection of hypocrisy on a particular member then that was out of order. I ask the Minister to clarify that that was not the case. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It certainly was not but let me give the answer again and change it a little because I can understand that the member is distressed. I think Mr Quigley has come to the view that National’s approach to obesity and type 2 diabetes is based on cant—that is that National has put together a minority report that is full of hand-wringing but that is apparently devoid of any real action. This is probably the most important public health issue this country faces. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree with the Health Committee that advertising marketing and promotion help to condition food preferences and normalise unhealthy food and can undermine parental authority and that the broadcast media should therefore restrict their advertisements on television for unhealthy food before 8.30 at night? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member raises a good important issue. However I think that the starting point in reply is to acknowledge freely that the main television companies in this country have come to the Government themselves and said: “We will remove certain types of advertising from programmes that are particularly watched by children.” I might add that this does not extend until 8.30 p.m. In addition they are funding programmes that will help to change people’s attitude to food in general so that is a remarkable and positive step. The select committee quite properly challenges the Government to ask whether more should be done. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to take a document that shows that children watch television until 8.30 and 9.30 p.m.— 
Document not tabled. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I seek leave to table an article quoting MP Sue Kedgley: “Fat-fight MP plans Happy Meal ban”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Emissions—Greenhouse Gas 
2.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Is he proud of the Government’s record on greenhouse gas emissions since 1999? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I am proud of the many steps this Government has taken towards carbon neutrality. We have brought wind power forward by many years. We have saved enough electricity to power a medium-sized city through our light bulb initiative. We have encouraged biofuels drafted an energy strategy that is already influencing our energy companies to go green and announced a $4 million per annum low carbon fund to bring forward new technologies. The full effect of all of these and other measures will be felt over many years to come and at the end of this question I will seek leave to table a 15-page list of all of the initiatives we have under way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister accept the official United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its inventory of greenhouse gas emissions which shows that New Zealand’s emissions from 1999 have increased by 12 percent—at a faster rate than Australia’s at 8 percent the United States’ at 4 percent and Japan’s at 2 percent—and that New Zealand has the 18th worst emission figures in the OECD; and how can the Prime Minister go to Sydney saying she will call on other countries to cut emissions when at home emissions are growing like there is no tomorrow? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I accept the statistics of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I also record again as I did yesterday that Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions per capita have been growing faster than New Zealand’s— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Carbon dioxide? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Carbon dioxide. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What about methane? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I will come to that. Of course Australia’s livestock emissions have come down because its livestock has been dying as a consequence of a drought. The Government in addition to the measures that I have previously set out is the first in the developed world to devolve Kyoto carbon credits for our permanent forests. We have set up a marine energy fund; we have changed Government procurement initiatives; we are strengthening our national grid which was neglected by the National Government; we are facilitating distributed generation; we have ramped up solar hot water heating; we have retrofitted tens of thousands of houses with energy insulation; and last but not least we have had a tenfold increase in funding for public transport. The full effect of these measures will be felt for many years. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Can the Minister please tell the House of other recent reports on approaches to managing greenhouse gases in New Zealand and beyond? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: A 2004 article in the  
Nelson Mail 
 newspaper quotes a member of this House as saying the party he belongs to would opt out of Kyoto at the first chance. I cannot reconcile this report with a subsequent report that the same member wrote to the  
Nelson Mail 
 which claimed he had never suggested pulling out of Kyoto. Dr Smith’s statements are typical of a party whose current leader has said climate change is a hoax and whose previous leader was equally sceptical about climate change. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did he say to Parliament yesterday: “We have not grown our coal-fired power” when his own ministry figures show that from 1999 to 2006 there was more than a trebling in the amount of electricity produced from coal which is the dirtiest way to produce electricity? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yesterday I said and it is true that New Zealand has not built a new coal-fired power station for decades. If the member cares to hold up the graph again he will prove the point I made yesterday that coal-related emissions are dropping. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Can the Minister share other reports on alternative approaches to climate change policy with the House? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: One hundred and seventy-five countries ratified Kyoto and only three backed out of their early agreement—Australia the United States and Kazakhstan. We know which side the National Party was on. The National Party has attempted to block every positive step this Government has taken on climate change and it has voted against every sensible measure this Government has put before the House. I note on the wires today a New Zealand Press Association article about Mr Key which states: “He would not criticise Mr Howard and US President George Bush for their position on Kyoto saying they were ‘going in the right direction.’ ”—yet again today! 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister both today in the House and yesterday in a press release when comparing New Zealand and Australian emissions conveniently use only the figure for carbon dioxide when everyone knows that half of New Zealand’s emissions are methane and nitrous oxide from agriculture; and is he now disputing the inclusion of all greenhouse gases in both the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The point I was making yesterday—and I am happy to repeat it; I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to do so—is that the member stated that because emissions growth in carbon dioxide and other gases was higher in percentage terms in New Zealand than Australia Australia was more credible on climate change and doing better. In fact because Australia has such a high rate of carbon dioxide emissions its lower percentage growth on a per capita basis is twice as high as New Zealand’s. That is because Australia is a higher polluter and in terms of carbon dioxide it is growing that gap fast. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister yesterday in arguing that New Zealand’s emissions had gone up by less than Australia’s conveniently refer back to 1990 rather than 1999 when Labour came to office given that the official figures show that between 1990 and 1999 New Zealand’s emissions grew by 1.3 percent as compared with Australia’s 2 percent but that since 1999 New Zealand’s emissions have grown by 2 percent per annum as compared with Australia’s 1.4 percent; and does this not show that emissions under this Labour Government are growing faster than they did for the 9 years of the previous National Government and faster than those of Australia over the same period? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I have not got the table in front of me but I recall that the statistic I was referring to yesterday was the growth in carbon dioxide emissions between 2000 and 2005. During that period New Zealand’s per capita carbon dioxide emissions grew by 0.4 tonnes per person and Australia’s grew by 0.8 tonnes per person. Clearly New Zealand is doing better than Australia in that regard. I made the point in respect of non - carbon dioxide emissions which in New Zealand’s case are mainly agricultural emissions that the big difference in recent years between Australia and New Zealand is that Australia has had declining output because of the terrible drought which has killed many of its livestock. National is scaremongering again. It is time National stopped trying to frighten the public and got along to being part of the solution. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister say that he is proud of this Government’s record on greenhouse gas emissions when Labour promised that emissions would be reduced by 20 percent by 2005 but the official records show that emissions went up by 12 percent; and what credibility can Helen Clark have internationally when her own Government’s record domestically is so poor? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The growth in New Zealand’s emissions in recent years is typical of the growth in emissions in many countries. It shows how difficult the challenge is of mitigating climate change - related emissions. But the long list of initiatives that I have already given will actually see New Zealand’s emissions going on a downward track. Indeed in recent months we have already seen power-related emissions decreasing. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: When the Minister told the House on Tuesday that New Zealand’s delegation to the UN climate change talks in Vienna had said that New Zealand would commit to binding targets after 2012 what specific targets did New Zealand offer to commit to at Vienna? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No specific figure was mentioned and it would be premature in those negotiations to do so. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What sort of panic is the Minister in that he is trying to hide the Government’s appalling record on climate change by firstly denying that coal-generated power has increased dramatically under this Government despite his own ministry’s figures stating that it has trebled; secondly conveniently excluding methane and nitrous oxide figures in the comparison with Australia; thirdly using a base year of 1990 rather than when this Government came to power in 1999 knowing that emissions actually grew more slowly under the previous Government; and finally despite all the international conventions like Kyoto and policy papers like the Stern report which are based on percentage reductions emissions he now wants to move off to a different measure; and why does he not just come clean and admit that emissions have been going up rapidly and that forests are being felled like they have never been before? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In response to the first leg of those many questions I say the answer is none. I would say that when it comes to credibility on climate change it seems to me that Dr Smith is like a polar bear skating on thin ice. On 18 July he misrepresented to this House that in the last year there had been a 9.7 percent increase in coal-fired electricity when there had been a 4.8 percent drop. Again I am very happy to stand by the record of this Government. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the graph. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I seek leave to table three documents. The first is a press release from Greenpeace on 3 September stating: “New Zealand should be utterly ashamed of its performance … ”— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I seek leave to table a small piece from the transcript of Steve Maharey’s speech in the House yesterday. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I seek leave to table a press release put out by Greenpeace today about Steve Maharey telling curious tales in Parliament. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table a 15-page list of sensible climate change policies that the Government has— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table a long list of National Party votes against measures in this House relating to climate change. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table the two irreconcilable and contradictory statements made by Nick Smith to the  
Nelson Mail 
— 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the Government’s actual record of increased— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Fishing—Set-net Restrictions 
3.  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: Has he seen any reports or plans that propose restrictions on commercial and recreational set-net fishing; if so what reasons are given for the restrictions? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Fisheries 
: Yes I have. The Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation have produced a draft threat management plan that seeks to address all threats to Maui’s and Hector’s dolphins including fishing threats seabed mining pollution and tourism. Set netting has been identified in the draft threat management plan as a threat to Maui’s and Hector’s dolphins. The draft threat management plan contains a range of options to address that threat including further restrictions on the use of set nets by commercial and recreational fishers. 
Metiria Turei 
: Can the Minister confirm that set nets are responsible for 63 percent of Hector’s dolphin deaths where the cause of death is known and that alternative fishing methods exist for all species caught by set nets? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No I cannot confirm that figure; I do not have it with me I am sorry. But from when I was the Minister of Fisheries at an earlier time I can say that it is a figure that feels to be about right. Set nets are certainly a significant part of the mortality complex of Hector’s and Maui’s dolphins. 
Metiria Turei 
: Why has the proposal to equip all trawling vessels with monitoring systems not made it into this plan when it has been supported by both fishers and conservationists and given that in the last 2 years there were no observers on those vessels? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I think it is important for the member to acknowledge that what the Government has just done in the last few days is to begin a process: to put out a draft plan so that people can comment on it. People will comment from either side of that plan and in due course decisions will need to be made. In the meantime the Government must of course remain very open-minded as to what is a reasoned response to the issue. 
Electoral Finance Bill—Community Groups 
4.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he stand by all the statements he made in his recent letter to community groups regarding the Electoral Finance Bill? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes because the letter repeats the Government’s intention to advance legislation that protects our electoral system from manipulation and notes that the bill is now before the Justice and Electoral Committee at which the letter expresses confidence improvements and refinements for inclusion in the bill may well be suggested. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister’s letter tell community groups that: “Electioneering activities are intended by Government to have a narrow scope in their definition in law.”; if so why is it that the definition in clause 5(1)(a) of the bill is in fact extremely wide as is noted by many of the submissions coming in on the bill? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I believe that the member makes an accurate reflection on the content of the letter and does so because like it or not we cannot avoid in this bill attempting to deal with the rorts that were visited upon our electoral system in 2005. Those precisely used the sorts of materials that purported to be non - party - political and non-electoral advertising but which quite literally sought according to their own authors to spend $1 million with the sole goal of getting votes for National. You see we are trying to close a loophole that was used and abused by the National Party and its friends to undermine our electoral system. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister’s letter tell community groups that the bill will not restrict their ability to play an active role in public debate; if so what does he call the requirement for them to register as a third party the cap of $60000 on their spending the requirement for them to appoint a financial agent the requirement for them to appoint an auditor and the requirement for them to file a return of their expenses and donations—and if those are not restrictions what are they? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I call them the provisions that apply only to those who seek to become participants as third parties in the electoral process. Of course unlike the impression given in Mr English’s taxpayer-funded extremist and misleading letter those organisations will be able to go about their normal business without any reference. For instance the Plunket Society runs a very good car seat campaign and it calls for public donations. That activity will not in any way be caught by the provisions of this bill. Yet the impression given by the National Party is that such activities as the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society’s excellent Kiwi Conservation Club for kids will be caught—the sort of campaign I am sure that members in this House have supported and given resourcing to. The impression given by the National Party is that all of those sorts of activities will somehow be fettered. That is absolute nonsense and National members know that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What should people making submissions on this bill base their submissions on: the vague intentions of the Minister or the black and white facts as they are presented in this bill? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: All submissions to a bill should be based on the understanding of the bill the person making the submission has. I say to Mr Brownlee that that is the point of a select committee process. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister provide to the House a list of references showing which clauses each of the statements he makes are based on; and if Mr English is wrong but able to list everything he claims against a clause in this bill why cannot the Minister do that for his vague intentions? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I would be interested to know how Mr English could find a clause that “relates to every—[ 
Interruption 
] Hang on—if members want to hear it! According to Mr English’s letter: “The bill will restrict your freedom to have your say on important issues in election year. We believe robust and diverse debate is widely held …”. It goes on to say: “The scope of the bill is so broad that any public communication”—any public communication—“by your organisation in election year will need to be scrutinised.” I challenge that member to point to the clause in the bill that says “any— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s true! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: So the member is suggesting that the Plunket Society putting out a public appeal for donations to the car seat campaign would have to be scrutinised under this bill. That is a patent nonsense. There is no such reference in the bill. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is it not the case that the Labour Government is so terrified of public scrutiny of its record that it has simply decided to legislate against it? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It is the case that this Government is happy to have a contest of ideas with a National Party that is so bereft of policy that the only thing it parades is apparent policy on a change-by-day basis—that is our policies—and the only way that it sees for itself to contest a campaign is to have the unfettered use of millions of dollars of other people’s money to try to buy a result. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If the Minister is to be believed then why will this bill restrict Opposition parties on the amount they can spend on an attack on and criticism of the Government for some 11 months prior to an election but allow the Government itself to dive into the taxpayer pool in an unfettered way to promote itself throughout that time? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As by the time the election comes every Government programme that any such publicity will be supporting will have been adopted by the National Party then it will be a very even-handed approach. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: There is that but— 
Hon Member 
: You’re going to answer the question. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Who said that? Notwithstanding that Dr Cullen’s contribution probably represents the fact of course the member confuses two completely different things. Like National members of Parliament members on this side of the House are constrained in the use of parliamentary budgets—absolutely constrained. For legitimate purposes— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Dr Cullen’s intervention has clearly meant that the Minister has not understood the question and I would like to ask it again. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Could we just hear the Minister’s reply. If he could get on with the reply then it would help us a lot. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The fact is that any expenditure to promote a Government service for instance is constrained by very strict parameters. It is under the absolute scrutiny of the Auditor-General and the member knows it. It is a red herring. The central issue here is the absolute terror of the National Party at fighting an election on policy and ideas rather than on fat bank balances. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that you are not responsible for the answers that a Minister gives but I think you probably do have some responsibility to ensure that the question asked is addressed by the Minister. The Minister who stood up and gave that answer clearly had not listened to the question he was asked. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did listen quite closely and know a little about this and I do think actually that the Minister did address the question this time. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Electoral Finance Bill comply with the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines and was a regulatory impact assessment undertaken as prescribed by the Minister for Economic Development; if not why not given the importance of this bill? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It is my recollection that the answer to both the questions is yes. 
Ron Mark 
: Will the Electoral Finance Bill provide protection for a third-party group that put a million dollars into a parallel election campaign to get votes for a political party on the basis that that party would rebuild the New Zealand Defence Force and reinstate an air strike capability when that party then reneged on that deal; or is the situation simply that the Exclusive Brethren have blown their money and should never have trusted National in the first place? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I cannot see where the ministerial responsibility is for that question. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. At the start of my question I asked the Minister: “Will the Electoral Finance Bill provide protection for” third parties and that does fit within the Minister’s responsibilities. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That does and if the question had stopped there it might have been all right. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: In a sense it will—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members ask questions they are entitled to hear the answers. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: In a sense it will because it will prevent the likes of the Exclusive Brethren from undertaking that sort of covert campaign in the future. But of course the Brethren could take a read of their own top line and wake up because they have been ripped off by the National Party. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Will the Electoral Finance Act prevent the Labour Party from using taxpayer money to distribute another pledge card? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The question of pledge cards is not in any way covered by this bill. Nor am I convinced that the bill will deliver the GST that is still outstanding from the National Party. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will be asking two members to take their argument outside if there is any more of this across-the-Chamber chat. 
Rates—Inquiry 
5.  
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Is he satisfied with the quality of evidence gathering analysis of the issues and conclusions drawn by the inquiry led by David Shand into local government rates and does he believe the report adequately meets the terms of reference for the inquiry? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 The report—which I should acknowledge owes much to New Zealand First’s constructive engagement particularly during the development of the terms of reference—is an extensive and significant piece of work was completed in the required time frame. An across-Government work programme to respond to the report’s recommendations is now under way. As to the member’s second question I believe that the panel sought in its report to address comprehensively the terms of reference. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the Minister confirm that this inquiry was initially called for by New Zealand First that it was vigorously resisted by him and this Government and that it was only when New Zealand First steadfastly held to its position in relation to the need for an independent inquiry that the Government finally relented the night before Rodney Hide’s bill went to the vote? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can happily confirm the first part of the member’s question—that this inquiry was actively promoted by New Zealand First. As to the second part I can confirm that this Government was convinced by the vigour of and the compelling arguments brought forward by New Zealand First to reach a conclusion to proceed with such an inquiry. 
Martin Gallagher 
: With reference to the report does the Government already have under way any work that potentially addresses any of the report’s very significant recommendations? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes indeed. The Government has increased spending on the Rates Rebate Scheme by almost $50 million and I have officials already reviewing a number of matters that have arisen as a result of the greater uptake of the scheme. Other allocations are $154 million over 10 years for drinking-water schemes $150 million over 10 years for the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme and $1.3 billion over 5 years for new transport funding and a significant proportion of that will of course go on local projects. There are many many more examples. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Have he or his staff been briefed on the details of the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First and in particular the part that states: “The relationship between New Zealand First and the government will be based on good faith and no surprises.” and does he believe that his failure to provide a timely pre - public release briefing to New Zealand First his failure to inform New Zealand First of the press conference until the day it was to take place the failure of his staff to send a copy of the report although they had promised to do so and his complete exclusion of any reference to New Zealand First’s role in securing the inquiry demonstrate acting in good faith with no surprises? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As the— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No be seated. We are in danger of having to hear the answer in silence. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can only say to the member that the— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Kia orana! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Kia ora! The one thing I cannot take responsibility for is the weather which caused his plane to be cancelled; otherwise he would have got to the briefing which had been set up as the member well knows to occur prior to that. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Would the Minister consider taking lessons in how to treat confidence and supply partners from his fellow Minister Pete Hodgson who in stark contrast to the Minister’s own actions gave credit where credit was due at the recent announcement of free doctors’ visits for under-sixes including ensuring that my colleague Barbara Stewart was at the official photo opportunity keeping her fully informed and giving appropriate credit to New Zealand First in his press release; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am always happy to learn from the experience of my colleagues. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Minister understand what the terms “good faith” and “no surprises” mean and if his poor judgment in this matter jeopardises the otherwise constructive relationship between New Zealand First and the Government would he do the honourable thing and resign; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: If I could take responsibility for the weather I would but I cannot. The member knows that good faith is a two-way street and the briefing that had been set up could not be completed because the member could not get there. The plane he was booked on did not take off. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the Minister confirm that after cancelling three briefings his office offered one the night before the so-called press release the public release of this document which he had not informed his New Zealand First counterpart was even going to occur and that as a result of his office not allowing for that briefing until the day before and not providing advice to the New Zealand First office until only an hour before the press conference New Zealand First had to go into the whole thing without actually ever seeing the document? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: At this point we part company. I cannot confirm all of those assertions. The briefing that was set up was confirmed as soon as it was able to be which was when we had final confirmation of the availability of the chair of the panel who had been overseas. It was important that we had him back in the country before we finally nailed down the release of the document. Secondly the important thing is that it was simply the release of the document. It was not a response to it; it was a simple release. The primary job of the day was having the chair of the committee back in New Zealand to ensure that he could front the release of his committee’s document which was what that occasion was about. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I seek leave to table an email from the Minister’s office to my office sent at 10.12 a.m. on 28 August advising that a media conference on the report would be held at 11.30— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is becoming very difficult to hear with all the chat. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave for there to be an immediate vote in order to test the House’s confidence in the Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I seek leave to table for the Minister’s benefit a copy of the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Corrections Department—Confidence 
6.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he have confidence in his department; if so why? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister of Corrections) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Corrections 
: Yes but there is always room for improvement. 
Simon Power 
: How can the Minister continue to claim that the new prisons are not gold-plated when the report released by Treasury yesterday states that facilities at Spring Hill and Otago exceed those of comparable Australian prisons sacrificing “significant savings in capital cost as well as operational savings” including en suites for medium to low security inmates because these would be “more attractive than communal showers” costing an extra $11.5 million? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: The member may not be aware that the Treasury report was commissioned by this Government in December 2005 and therefore the Government welcomes the recommendations and the key findings of the report. If the member wishes to compare New Zealand prisons with prisons in Australia then I advise him that the next time Hone Harawira goes to the outback of Australia he should accompany him to have a good look at how the indigenous people of Australia are treated. 
Simon Power 
: How does the Minister reconcile his statement to the House in February last year that the costs of the prisons had escalated because “the costs of steel and concrete have increased considerably” with the finding in this report that most of the significant materials required “had been prepurchased to guard against potential shifts in materials’ prices”? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Once again the member is wrong. 
Hon Members 
: Aw! 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Once again the member is wrong. I can advise that member that the increased costs in the regional prisons development project in terms of construction costs was simply the difference between the time when the decisions to make the construction were made and the time it actually took to start the construction and it would be expected in any project of this size that there would be a significant difference in the cost of construction materials. If the member has difficulty in understanding that then I recommend that he talks to his colleague from Tauranga Bob Clarkson. 
Simon Power 
: Can he confirm that the report identifies a number of savings that still could have been made in the final stages of construction such as $600000 for slightly less opulent landscaping and could not even more money have been saved had this report been delivered on time by the end of June last year rather than over a year later? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: For the benefit of that member I say the landscaping undertaken at the facilities is to a basic requirement under the Resource Management Act. The member should know that there are community issues and environmental issues and there are issues surrounding the protection of local communities in terms of security. 
Simon Power 
: How does he reconcile his statement to the House in February last year that: “Private prisons have proven not to be less costly.” with the recommendation from this report which I trust he has read that one option for reducing the costs of building prisons would be to reintroduce the private sector in the development and management of prisons because “it’s proved very cost-effective in Australia”; and could private providers do a worse job than his department? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: The member will be aware that under the Labour-led Government prisons will remain a fundamental role of the State. In answer to the latter part of the question the member needs to know that overseas experience shows that private prisons have lower staff / prisoner ratios and inferior pay and conditions for staff compared with those in public prisons. The member needs to understand that—or is he saying that conditions for prison staff are irrelevant in terms of National Party policy? 
Ron Mark 
: Despite the evidence about the running of the Auckland Central Remand Prison by private enterprise and the contents of this report being so clear why is this Government still philosophically fundamentally and ideologically so opposed to a balanced mix of privately run prisons and State-run prisons? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: That member might like to go to Ngawha prison one day and have a look at the programmes being run; they are provided by non-governmental organisations. 
Simon Power 
: What did his department mean when it told the authors of the Treasury report that the department took an “organic approach” to value management for regional prisons? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I tell the member again the review report was commissioned by this Government in an effort to look at better ways of prison construction and prisoner management going forward into the next 100 years—unlike that member’s Government in the 1990s which allowed prisons to become run down. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question simply asked what his department meant by “organic approach”. I am sure he did not address that matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the Minister did not address it. Would the Minister address the question please. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: The member raises an important issue but I think if he went around and looked at our prisons and saw the facilities that have been built as part of the regional development programme instead of referring to them as places where prisoners live in the lap of luxury he would see that the security of communities surrounding prisons is a high priority and that there are programmes run within prisons designed— 
Simon Power 
: What does “organic” mean? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: The member talked about landscaping and he will find that it is very organic. 
Email—Control of Unsolicited Emails 
7.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: What is the Government doing to combat unsolicited emails? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 The Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007 was passed to help reduce spam with a New Zealand link. The legislation took effect yesterday following a 6-month transition period to allow organisations to get their email practices and database systems in order. The Act alone will not solve the issue of spam. However enforcement agencies are now in a position to bring New Zealand - based spammers to task for all their illegitimate activities. 
Darien Fenton 
: What other reports has the Minister seen on unsolicited emails? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I have seen reports on emails being received or not received read or not read opened or not opened forwarded or not forwarded replied to or not replied to and on the contents of emails being remembered or not remembered discussed or not discussed actioned or not actioned. That report was called  
The Hollow Men 
 and although the new Act has the power to stop unsolicited emails it will not help John Key’s selective memory. 
Housing New Zealand Corporation—Corruption Allegations 
8.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Does he stand by his statements reported by IRN NewsRoom and TV3 respectively in June 2007 that he “is promising corruption allegations involving Housing New Zealand will be looked into thoroughly” has “asked the board to look into a claim that the former Mangere tenant might have been helped by someone inside the corporation to get a house” and “says he will look into allegations that insider help was given to a tenant who managed to sublet a state house”; if so why did he say yesterday that “The investigation that we have had has been about the length of time it has been taking to investigate allegations.”? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Yes. I advised the House on 28 June 2007: “Today I have written to the chair of Housing New Zealand requesting that the board review the corporation’s investigation processes”. I did that because I was not satisfied that the case the member raises and other cases had been dealt with in a timely or an efficient manner. As far as the particular case the member raised yesterday and again today is concerned which is part of that process of review I can assure the House that it has been carefully investigated. There is no basis for believing that unjustified assistance was provided by corporation staff. However I am not prepared to comment further as that could jeopardise pending legal action. 
Phil Heatley 
: Is the Minister saying that the investigation into corruption is part of the wider investigation into the length of time it has been taking to investigate allegations? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Absolutely. As I am sure that the member reads all of my press statements very thoroughly he would have seen that on 28 June 2007 I listed the four issues I wanted Housing New Zealand Corporation to look at. They were—and I will repeat them—why a refocusing of the investigations unit by the corporation management last year did not seem to have improved its performance; how many other cases have been affected; what impact any of the delays have had on the cases; and finally the causes of the delay in the Mangere case. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What reports has the Minister seen about allegations of corruption in Housing New Zealand Corporation? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Last year the allegations that were repeatedly raised in this House by National’s spokesperson on housing about corruption in Housing New Zealand Corporation were found after a thorough investigation by the Auditor-General to be false. This year the same member raised allegations of corruption by Housing New Zealand Corporation staff at our Mangere office. An internal audit peer reviewed by an external agency has confirmed that there is no basis to believe there is any truth in the latest allegations of corruption. I can only agree with the editorial in the  
Waikato Times 
 of 1 August this year which stated: “Mr Heatley has sensationalised his criticisms. They are mischievous and illogical.” 
Phil Heatley 
: In regard to the investigation report’s due date why did he say in this House yesterday that “No such date as the end of July was given.” when in this House on 28 June he said: “Today I have written to the chair of Housing New Zealand … with a due date for report back to me of 27 July.”; was he misleading the House then or was he misleading the House yesterday? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: In my answer halfway through the questions from that member yesterday I realised at that point that he was talking about two different investigations. I had answered the question yesterday about the investigation into the processes at Housing New Zealand Corporation and I gave some answers about that but I realised quickly as the questions went on that the issue was actually about the Mangere case. I received a report on 6 July about the Mangere case and I was commenting about that. 
Phil Heatley 
: The Minister has just admitted and conceded to this House that he realised during question time yesterday that his answer was in fact incorrect. Why did he not correct it at the time? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think it was obvious. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: There is a difference between giving an incorrect answer to a question that one has understood and answering a question that one has not understood the purport of but answering it to the best of one’s ability at the time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I recall the exchanges eventually we did get to the heart of the matter. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why has the report sat on the Minister’s desk since 27 July—because we understand from him that that is when he demanded it be delivered to him—and why does he not release it now 6 weeks after he received it? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I like to have any report that I receive checked. It has to be peer reviewed by the Department of Building and Housing which is the monitoring agency for Housing New Zealand Corporation. That has now happened. In the Mangere case which the member has been making a lot of noise about but which we have now found to be false the report was also checked by an external agency just to make sure that there was absolutely no possibility of corruption being involved. That all takes time. I now have the reports back and they will be released soon. 
Phil Heatley 
: Does the Minister see the irony of his investigation into “the length of time it has been taking to investigate allegations” when he himself is sitting on a report he promised 6 weeks ago? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I do see the irony of that member once again making false allegations about corruption at Housing New Zealand Corporation and wasting taxpayers’ money. 
Phil Heatley 
: How can it be that a Bay of Islands holiday homeowner is dobbed in for subletting a State house in February 2006 an investigation into that takes till May 2006 to start a report on it is completed in August it sits around on a corporation desk for 10 months until questions are raised in this House in June 2007 and it is then sent to the Crown solicitor where it is still sitting on his desk; and why oh why is the Minister himself still sitting on a report that he received 6 weeks ago? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Those very questions facilitated my getting Housing New Zealand Corporation to work on that. I thanked that member in this House 3 months ago for raising those issues. They are valid issues. The nonsense about corruption is not a valid issue but there is a valid issue about process. I can assure this House that I am on to it and we are fixing it up. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the Minister promising in various media reports there would be a corruption investigation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the Minister demanding a July 27 report back from Housing New Zealand Corporation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I seek leave to table an editorial from the  
Waikato Times 
 of 1 August. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Business—Quality Regulation Review 
9.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What have been the outcomes of the Quality Regulation Review in terms of improving the regulatory environment for business? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 The process of the Quality Regulation Review has been excellent because it has enabled the Government to consider regulation from the perception of business and to hear not only their concerns but also their solutions. A key outcome has been the strengthened regulatory impact assessment regime which came in on 1 April this year including the requirement that discussion documents have draft regulatory impact statements or at least include the questions that will enable a high-quality regulatory impact statement to be developed. In addition the Business Consultation Website used in the review is being retained so that business can continue to give feedback on rules that affect them and next year we start a 2-year trial of a business cost calculator so that we can quantify the compliance costs of regulation. 
Maryan Street 
: Can the Minister identify specific improvements made to various regulatory frameworks and how some of the overlapping issues have been addressed? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: There are actually too many to list in the time that I have available but I shall mention just a few. The Accident Compensation Corporation and the Inland Revenue Department have agreed to improve the coordination of data collection and to share information on businesses. The adjustment dates for excise and for the Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand levy paid by the wine industry have now been aligned. The Environmental Risk Management Authority and the Department of Labour have developed information and tools to assist Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act compliance in the farming and horticultural industries. The Ministry of Health is working with the health sector to reduce contractual and legislative requirements placed on suppliers of health-related services including duplicated audit requirements. The Department of Building and Housing the Department of Internal Affairs the Ministry for the Environment and Local Government New Zealand are collaborating to sort out issues where the Resource Management Act and the Building Act coincide. The Department of Labour and the Ministry of Justice will soon issue a discussion document on Easter weekend and the rules around shop trading hours sale of liquor and statutory holidays. The list goes on. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Will the Minister confirm that the report released today  
Streamlining the System 
 states: “A large number of issues raised related to … underlying policy and so were outside the scope of the review.”; if so can she inform the House when she or the Prime Minister will be announcing a new review that actually deals with the real issues such as employment law occupational safety and health and the Resource Management Act all of which concern New Zealand businesses of all sizes? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes; and no. 
Maryan Street 
: What future steps will be taken as a result of the decisions taken under the Quality Regulation Review? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Due to the success of the sector studies contained in the report  
Streamlining the System 
 the Ministry of Economic Development is to report to me on proposals for a 5-year programme of sector studies to be commenced next year. The Government will examine the feasibility of introducing standard business reporting as used in the Netherlands and soon to be used in Australia whereby businesses can submit financial data to several Government agencies in just one transaction cutting the time and effort spent preparing and filing reports to the Government. New Zealand’s regulatory environment is in good shape which is confirmed by our rating in world surveys such as our No. 2 ranking in the World Bank’s Doing Business survey and yesterday’s announcement that we have retained our No. 3 standing in the Fraser Institute’s report on world economic freedom. Doing business in New Zealand is good. 
Police—Stab-resistant Vests 
10.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What proportion of response staff had been issued with stab-resistant vests by the end of July 2007 not including temporary covert body armour? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 As of 24 July 2007 66 percent of response staff had been issued with permanent stab-resistant body armour and a further 11 percent of response staff had been issued with temporary stab-resistant body armour. As of 8 August 2007 5510 members of police had received stab-resistant body armour. That means that 75 percent of the total target of 7293 staff have a level of protection that was not available to them previously. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can the Minister confirm that 2000 vests are gathering dust in storage because over a quarter of officers were given vests that were too small due to “variability in skill level of the measurers” and why has no one been held accountable for this bungle? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think it is fair to say that many mistakes have been made in this project and that has been acknowledged by the New Zealand Police. But since deputy commissioner Rob Pope took over this project when he became deputy commissioner the project has got back on track. There are 2000 vests in stock and these will be issued— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Small ones! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No they are not all small. This is some of the nonsense that is being spoken. The vests will be issued to members of the New Zealand Police—to new recruits to those returning to the workforce and to those returning from overseas. At the end of that time the department will then see which sizes are left. The vests are not all small. 
Jill Pettis 
: How is the time frame looking for finishing the roll-out of stab-resistant body armour by the end of the year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have been advised that the goal of finishing the roll-out by the end of the year is on target. I understand that the second to last shipment of stab-resistant body armour for the project arrived in New Zealand in late August a month ahead of schedule. The vests are currently being quality-checked before being sent to districts for distribution. 
Chester Borrows 
: When will all of the 2000 vests in storage actually be used in light of the fact that the Minister has had to bring forward the purchase of 2000 replacement vests of the right sizes costing another $2.7 million or is the truth that those vests will be sitting in storage when Labour gets the boot in 12 months? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No the vests will not all be sitting in storage in 12 months when Labour is re-elected as the Government. Many of the vests will be issued to those who come back into the workforce to those who return from overseas and to new recruits. 
Chester Borrows 
: Why did the Minister state in May that only 1200 vests would need to be stored when records show she knew in March that up to 2000 would need to be put into storage? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Because those were the figures that the New Zealand Police gave me at that time. 
Chester Borrows 
: How can the Minister be sure that all of the 2000 vests will be used when the surplus of the second third and fourth-smallest sizes are being “held in stock for issue to staff whose physical dimensions match including new recruits”; and does she agree that even at current rates of recruitment if all recruits were small enough to fit those vests it would take 6 years before they were issued? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The thing about these vests is that they do not go off; they do not rot. So whether it takes 1 year or 5 years to roll them out they are still going to be there. However I have to tell the member that in the New Zealand Police the size of police officers goes from petite to XXX so to be able to provide vests there has to be that range. Of the 2000 vests there happen to be big ones and small ones. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I appreciate the answer that the Minister just gave the House. I think it was important. These vests do not go off. But do they go out of fashion? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order nor is it a supplementary question however interesting it may have been. 
Television New Zealand—Maori Strategy 
11.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Kei te whakaae ia ki te korero o te Tumuaki o Whakaata Maori a Jim Mather i ki ka raru a Whakaata Maori a nga ra kei te heke iho a ka raru hoki te putea i te rautaki reo Maori hou kua whakaritea e TVNZ a meina kei te whakaae ia me pehea a ia e mau tonu ki tona kupu i te rua tekau ma ono o Hongongoi ara “e kore e iti iho te nui o nga whakaari reo Maori” i runga i a Whakaata Maori? 
[ 
Does he agree with the Maori Television chief executive Jim Mather who has described the State broadcaster’s newly developed Maori strategy as a threat to Maori Television’s future and to its funding base; if so how will he keep the commitment he gave on 26 July 2007 that “There will be no decrease in the amount of Maori language programming” on Maori Television? 
] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: No. Maori Television as an emerging public service broadcaster has secured a leadership role in providing a broad range of Maori language and general content programmes that appeal to many viewers in the New Zealand audience. The Maori Television Service is quickly becoming the channel of choice for many people. Recent figures support that trend. In an industry where audience share is everything Television New Zealand has realised that it needs to lift its game. I for one welcome more Maori language and content programmes on all public service broadcasters. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Na te mea ko ia te Minita mo nga Take Maori ka tuturu tana whakapono e ki nei“i korero tahi ake ano tatou mo toku whakaaro kaore e whakaae ake awau ki te nekeneke i a  
Te Karere 
 me  
Marae 
”; a meina ae he aha ai? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Does the Minister of Maori Affairs stand by his comment: “I made it clear that I don’t support the proposed changes to  
Te Karere 
 and  
Marae 
”; if so why? 
] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Comments were made with the understanding that all editorial comments in relation to TVNZ are a matter to be dealt with by the Minister of Broadcasting. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kei te matau ia ki nga awangawanga o tana hoa a Dover Samuels i tana korero “he porangi pohauhau” te wa hou kua whakaritea e TVNZ hei wa paoho a “e whakaiti ana i to tatou reo” a he aha ona tohutohu ki te Minita Whakapaoho mo te whanui o te whakaahunga a te Maori mo enei whakarereketanga ? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Is the Minister of Maori Affairs aware of the concerns of his fellow Maori MP Dover Samuels that the changes instigated by TVNZ are “ridiculous” and that the new time format “belittles our language”; and what advice will he be giving the Minister of Broadcasting about the widespread dissatisfaction among Maori about these changes? 
]  
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: The Minister of Maori Affairs has no problem expressing views about the way in which any broadcaster addresses issues concerning Maori and neither should he. In relation to colleagues who have made statements with similar content they well know that those are issues for the Minister of Broadcasting. However let me say that the Minister of Maori Affairs has been no stranger to supporting Maori language programming on all public service broadcasters. He will continue to do so in an effort to ensure that both in front of and behind the camera Maori continue to thrive in the broadcasting industry. 
Moana Mackey 
: What reports has the Minister received about the Maori Television Service? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: The Minister has received a number of reports that show that the number of people watching the Maori Television Service has increased and that is a positive thing. TVNZ has lifted its game to try to respond. What that will do is to increase Maori language and content programming on all public service broadcasters. That too is a positive thing. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kua rongo ia i te korero o Whai Ngata te Kaiwhakahaere Maori mo TVNZ e ki ana ehara i te mea na te iti o nga whakatauranga mo te karere te take i neke ia i te mea ko  
Te Karere 
 kei mua noa atu o nga whakaari Maori katoa a ko nga whika tonu a TVNZ kei te ki ka heke nga kaititiro Maori ki te tekau o-rau mena ka neke a  
Te Karere 
 ki te tekau ma rima meneti ki te wha karaka i te ahiahi na ka taea e ia te whakamarama he aha i mahi ai a TVNZ i tenei mahi ahakoa he rereke nga whakaaturanga?  
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Is the Minister of Maori Affairs aware that TVNZ’s General Manager Whai Ngata has stated that poor ratings are not the reason for moving  
Te Karere 
 as it was the best performing of all Maori content programmes and that TVNZ’s own figures suggest that a 3.45 p.m. slot would reduce the number of Maori viewers to just 10 percent; and can he explain why TVNZ is taking this action despite all evidence suggesting otherwise? 
]  
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: I restate on behalf of the Minister of Maori Affairs that issues of an editorial nature are a matter for the Minister of Broadcasting. I am sure that the Minister of Maori Affairs will relay a number of concerns to that Minister. However TVNZ may care to reflect on the timing issues which may advantage the Maori Television Service and its programming timing slots. 
Crown Minerals—Confidence 
12.  
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Energy 
: Does he have confidence in Crown Minerals? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
:  
Yes but there is always room for improvement. In addition with reference to the matter raised by the same member in his similar question yesterday I tell him that contrary to his allegations I acted in accordance with officials’ advice. I will seek leave to table that advice at the end of the question. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: When the Minister personally granted a petroleum mining permit to Macdonald Investments Ltd was he aware that over the previous 15 years despite two terms of exploration permits the company had never made a discovery? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: First the member should get his facts right. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes I invite the member to repeat his allegation outside. I am sorry Madame Speaker. In response to the comment by Maurice Williamson I invite the member to take the comments he made yesterday and say them again outside. I will be very much prepared to have a dictaphone there. I say to the member Chris Auchinvole that he should get his facts right. Macdonald Investments had operated the permit for approximately 8½ years when it came to Crown Minerals wishing to review its operation and look at some alternative way of resolving the issues it had come across. This particular permit was an exploration permit in its second term. The terms were of 5 years and 5 years and Macdonald Investments had not completed the second term. The application that it made in the end after discussion with Crown Minerals was for a mining licence which is quite different to the original application. It has not been unusual when a licence is of a new or an interesting nature for me to take a personal interest in it and to sign it personally. This was the first occasion on which a coal-seam gas mining licence had ever been applied for in New Zealand. That is why I signed it personally just as I signed licences for the Pohokura project and many others projects of national importance. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Why did the Minister personally grant the mining licence knowing that Macdonald Investments had made no previous discoveries; and did he also know that in the period from 2002 to 2006 Macdonald Investments did not complete its scheduled work programme? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Yes I did know that it had not completed its obligations under its previous application. However I absolutely complied with the statutory responsibilities and when I table the information members will all be able to see just how wrong the member is. He should support the company which is making a significant investment in his own area. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Is the Minister aware that section 38 of the Crown Minerals Act states that the Minister “shall decline” permit amendments and extensions where holders have failed to substantially comply with permit conditions; if so what was the compelling argument that caused him to not only fail to revoke Macdonald Investments’ exploration permit in the face of non-performance but to open-handedly grant it a 40 - year mining permit? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Most mining permits are of that sort of duration. That is the first point. The second point is that— 
Hon Member 
: Where are your interests Harry? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I am sorry but I take offence at that remark. I will deal with that at the end of the question. The second point that I make to the member is that he should not listen to disgruntled former employees of the company and should actually look properly at the legislation himself because the legislation that Macdonald Investments applied for the original permit under was in fact related to an exploration permit. The permit the company now has is a mining permit. Those are two quite different things. What the company has done and what the application was for is to considerably increase the investment being made by the company and to take what is a not inconsiderable commercial risk itself. But that is the company’s choice. In addition I will say this. Since acquiring the mining permit Macdonald Investments Ltd has seen considerable commercial interest in its operations and it has successfully managed to utilise the skills of an organisation with considerable international specialisation in coal-seam gas technology. That is new to New Zealand and it is something the member should be aware of because he lives in the area. I do not think he is doing a good job at all for the company involved. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has the level of mineral and petroleum activity on the South Island’s West Coast increased in recent years? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Yes considerably so. Since I became the Associate Minister of Energy there has been a marked increase in activity in the region. During that time 199 permits have been issued. Of those 160 have been for minerals 13 have been for petroleum activity and the remainder have been for coal. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What is the Minister’s explanation for not following section 38 of the Act for not listening to all of the advice of Crown Minerals officials and for taking the unusual step of becoming personally involved and signing off on an unprecedented mining permit after only 1 month of consideration? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The member is wrong on virtually every point he made in his question. The 1-month period was the period in which the actual formal application had been made but the company had been involved in discussions with Crown Minerals over that application if not for years then certainly for many months. Also I will tell the member that I have signed many permits. It is not unusual. Just recently I signed the Great South Basin permits. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Given that a former Associate Minister of Energy in this Labour-led Government was not as successful as the current one is could the Minister outline the specific things that the current Associate Minister has done that were not achieved as much by the former Associate Minister of Energy? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I certainly would not want to embarrass my colleague. But can I say that there has been a considerable upgrade of the ability particularly technology-wise within Crown Minerals to enable it to respond to a greatly more competitive world exploration environment. I also say that this allegation has been rather a surprise to me. I would have thought that the member Chris Auchinvole would support his local company actually support what it is doing and at least go to talk with the company about what it is involved with. It is no wonder he is not the local member there. Madam Speaker I seek leave to table the documentation and advice on Macdonald Investments Ltd—the company outlined by the member. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No 11 to Minister 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Maori Affairs 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document that demonstrates that the viewer audience of Maori Television has increased. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.