Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:11987] 
Questions to Ministers 
Electoral Finance Bill—Encouragement of Full and Open Expression 
1. 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 the Government “is seeking to encourage full and open expression from a diverse range of interests in the run-up to a general election.”; if so why? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: Yes; because that is the Government’s intent. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why has the Government’s bill been criticised by the Human Rights Commission which says in contrast to the Minister of Justice’s opinion that the bill “will have a chilling effect” on the expression of political opinion during an election year and how come the Minister the Human Rights Commission and many other submitters have completely opposite views of what the bill will do? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The intent of the bill is to ensure that there is full and open expression. There is a select committee process under way and the Human Rights Commission has made a submission. I am sure that its views will be debated in full. 
Hon Bill English 
: When the Minister reads the bill rather than runs the Labour Party spin about its intent does he realise he will find out that the Ministry of Health will be allowed to put out a communications package during the regulated period from 1 January that talks about cheaper doctors’ fees under the primary care strategy but that if the same statement was made by the Labour Party it would be caught as an election advertisement? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As we said yesterday to the member of course Government departments will continue to ensure New Zealanders get access to services and that will require them to make those services known. The hypothetical case he raises is something he is amusing himself with but I do not think it is relevant to this debate. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister believe that the hugely increased financial influence demonstrated at the last election is destructive to democracy? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The answer is clearly yes. That is why I think many people are deeply concerned at the continued argument by the National Party which seems to be determined to want to continue having large amounts of money flooding through its coffers during election periods that may well influence what voters do and may well influence policy rather than to do what so many other countries do and have a fair and an open contest. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is it Labour Party policy that statements made by Government departments regarding the benefits of the Government’s policy would be unregulated and uncapped but that the same statements if made by the Labour Party itself would be subject to the political advertisement restrictions in the bill? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member assumes an identical statement would be made by a political party and by a Government department. He has not given an example yet. Therefore this is merely hypothetical and I do not think it is part of the debate. 
Hon Bill English 
: When the Minister reads the bill does he realise that he will find out that in fact Government departments are not exempt from the provisions that ban electoral advertising during the regulated period—even though Parliamentary Service spending is exempt—and that the effect is that Government departments will have to check whether the statements they make constitute electoral advertising and if they do they will have to make statutory declarations and/or register as third parties because they will be subject to the law in the same way as everyone else? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is interesting that the member changes the argument each day. I think the argument that has been made that the select committee is the appropriate place to work through these issues so we get good consistent legislation is obviously right. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Government know whether Government departments would have to register as third parties if they spend over $60000 on making statements that might constitute political advertisements? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: If Government departments are going about their normal business of making taxpayers aware of services available to them of course they will not. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that this postcard asking Annette King to fire Clint Rickards which is being given out in the main street of Wellington right now will next year be illegal because it is not authorised by a financial agent when it takes a political position? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I say to the member that that is exactly the kind of situation the Exclusive Brethren found themselves in. They were spending large amounts of money with no attribution and no address on trying to influence the election campaign. Does the member want to see that carry on or not? 
Schools—Funding 
2.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports if any has he received on the level of school funding? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen one report arguing that schools are raising nearly half a billion dollars through fund-raising. To reach this rather outrageous conclusion the author of the report counts only revenue and does not count expenditure. As a result it has been assumed that 100 percent of revenue from say a school tuck shop is profit but of course the school had to buy the products in the first place in order to be able to sell them. That report came from Katherine Rich and I can only say that if that is the kind of “creative maths” approach that the National Party is undertaking we can see how there can be tax cuts and an increase in Government spending at the same time. 
Dianne Yates 
: What further reports has the Minister seen on school funding? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen reports and they have been as diverse as suggestions being made that low-decile schools are “awash with cash” that we should fund private schools at a higher level that privatisation has a greater role to play in education and that there should be a rolling programme of tax cuts every single year. I say to schools that if they have heard those reports and think they are raising money now they should just wait to see if there is ever a National Government to contend with when it will remove all their money for its rolling tax cuts. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Has the Ministry of Education given any consideration to the recommendation in the rates inquiry report that schools should pay rates; if so how does it suggest that such a recommendation could be met without exacerbating the breaches of the principle of equal educational opportunity that occur under the present funding arrangements? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member will know that report is still under consideration. But I think that the point he makes at the end of his question is a very important one. One of the reasons we do not have rateable properties on our schools is that it would cause costs to fall on schools that may well relate to access to education. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Could the Minister who mentioned a report on rolling tax cuts on an annual basis tell the House who made such a statement? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am struggling to find out how that relates to— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Where’s the ministerial responsibility— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That member will leave the House if he keeps interrupting when I am ruling. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. Be seated. Just be seated Dr Smith. I am tired of your constant interruption before I can give my ruling. Would the Hon Jim Anderton like to rephrase that question because by the way in which it was given it was difficult to know where ministerial responsibility lay. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: In relation to the report that the Minister quoted of rolling tax cuts made on an annual basis what would be the implications of that process for any Government; and is there any author to that report whose name can be given to the House? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. That does not relate specifically to education so I rule that question out of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Thank you! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That member is on his last warning. 
Dianne Yates 
: What alternative proposals has the Minister seen regarding changes to the way our schools are funded? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen one report advocating the reintroduction of bulk funding on a “no ifs no buts and no fighting in school communities” basis and stating that that will be a political decision made by politicians. Bulk funding would effectively cap school funding and force schools to employ less-experienced teachers on cheaper salaries. It would slash funding dedicated to teacher professional development and force each school board to negotiate contracts with its own individual teachers. The person who asked for this to happen and who said that it should be a political decision is none other than Mr Bill English supported by Mr Allan Peachey. It is another example of the National Party simply not learning from its past mistakes. 
Taxation—Effects of Reduced Rates 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is it still his position that tax cuts would require “severe cuts on expenditure on public services and infrastructure”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 My comment was made in the context of National’s utterly irresponsible 2005 promise to cut taxes by 2½ billion dollars a year from 1 April 2006 rising to $4 billion a year by 1 April 2008 and I absolutely stand by that comment. Given the member’s remark that retirement income provision in New Zealand is too generous one can see where one of the cuts would have occurred. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister stand by his reported statement today where he is quoted as acknowledging that tax cuts are affordable and that there is fiscal headroom; does that mean he has changed his mind on his position that any tax cut means significant spending cuts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the member had bothered to listen to my Budget speech in May this year that is precisely what I said. I might refer him to the Treasury report of 30 November 2006 which has been in the public arena that made it clear the reason why there should not be fiscal loosening was in relation to the macroeconomic situation—a point this member has been making for months that fiscal policy should be tighter—and now he says it should be looser. The National Party now agrees but agrees on the wrong position. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What reports has he seen on the advisability of large-scale tax cuts in the current macroeconomic environment? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Along with the many reports from agencies such as the IMF OECD and the Reserve Bank warning that significant stimulus above that currently planned would be inflationary I have also seen a report saying that: “Now is not the time to be giving extensive tax cuts.” That was said by Mr Bill English. 
Rodney Hide 
: Will the Minister be announcing a programme of tax cuts in his next Budget; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What I have said on many occasions over recent weeks and months is that in next year’s Budget I expect to announce a programme in relation to revenue over the medium to longer term. I also expect that that programme will be looking at ways in which any tax reductions can be shared more evenly across the population and not simply go to those whom the member represents. 
Gordon Copeland 
: If the Minister still believes that meaningful tax cuts would lead to infrastructural investment cuts why does he not look at alternative ways of funding that investment by for example selling down a minority stake in State-owned enterprises to Kiwis thus building an ownership society reducing tax and growing infrastructural investments—a win-win-win situation for New Zealanders? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Selling off part of the State-owned enterprises to pay for current consumption is not something I think almost anybody in this House supports. I am not sure it is at all consistent with the kind of long-term view one might expect from a spokesperson from a Judaeo-Christian – principled party. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it now the Minister’s position that any tax reductions by Labour are affordable and there is fiscal headroom for them and any tax reduction by National means that doctors nurses and policemen will be sacked? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It certainly is that if the member cares to lay over the current and last 2 years’ fiscal statements on the economy tax cuts are $2.5 billion on 1 April 2006 rising to $4 billion a year from 1 April 2008. Without significant fiscal loosening without stimulating further inflation large reductions in spending would have had to occur and that is what this member has consistently opposed and told John Key in 2005 was not affordable. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: How much would it cost to deliver a $10 per week tax cut? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Assuming that was reasonably evenly spread it would cost something over a billion dollars a year—about the same amount invested in KiwiSaver which will lead to significant increases in people’s retirement income. But unlike the investment in KiwiSaver it would of course have fed into further demand in the economy placing further pressure upon monetary policy leading to a longer period of higher interest rates and a higher exchange rate. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister recall his statement in the 2005 Budget that he would raise income tax thresholds to reduce taxes his repeat of the same promise in the 2006 Budget and then his decision to rescind both of those promises in the 2007 Budget and is he aware that that is why most people do not believe anything he says about tax cuts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes no and yes and of course what the member did in response to the 2005 Budget was to say that those cuts were not worth having. If they were not worth having then I am afraid he got his best wish in that respect. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can we sum up the Minister’s position on tax cuts in this way: that he said he could not and he would not then he could and he would and later he cannot and he shall not but now—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please continue. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can I start the question again? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes you can. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can we now—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will have the question in silence so we can get it through. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can we now sum up the Minister’s and Labour’s position on tax cuts in the following way: he said he could not and he would not then he said he cannot and he shall not then he said he could and he would and now he might when it is right and why does he not listen to those New Zealanders who are telling him he is wrong and he is gone and his Labour colleagues who are saying that he is tired and should be fired? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will now have the reply in silence. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Like the member of course that was a heavily recycled joke. But what I can say is that my position over the last couple of years can be quoted in the following simple words: “Now is not the time to be giving extensive tax cuts.”—the Hon Bill English. 
Rodney Hide 
: Would the House be correct in concluding from what the Minister said earlier that there will be some announcement of a programme of tax cuts in the next Budget; they might not be say the tax cuts that this particular member would be interested in but there will be some announcement of tax cuts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I expect that any announcements I would make in next year’s Budget are not likely to lead to a mass break-out of the “Bolly” in Kohimarama. 
Health Services—Appointment Non-attendance 
4.  
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
 on behalf of  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports regarding the costs to the health system resulting from those who fail to turn up to medical appointments? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I have. I have received many reports. The DNA or “did not attend” rate is an ongoing issue in New Zealand hospitals as it is elsewhere in the world. Good progress has been made in many areas particularly in Northland where the “did not attend” rate has reduced from 22 percent to 6 percent over recent years but there is still room for further improvement. 
Pita Paraone 
: Is the Minister aware that a recent study of the number of patients who did not attend medical appointments across all 21 district health boards found that the book cost of that non-attendance was $57 million last year alone and that nearly one in 10 people did not attend their pre-set appointments? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I am aware of the study that the member refers to and indeed the estimated cost which is as I am sure the member will agree more of an opportunity cost than a real cost both for the patient who did not turn up and for the patient who might have taken that person’s place. 
Pita Paraone 
: Is the Minister aware that the same study found that nearly two-thirds of those not attending were senior citizens with Maori Pacific Islanders and other ethnic minorities making up the majority of the remaining third and that almost without exception the reason for their non-attendance was a lack of transport? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It may be useful if I refer the member to a different study a thoroughgoing study done recently by the MidCentral District Health Board which tends to confirm the member’s point of view that a lot of senior citizens Maori and Pacific Islanders are amongst those who did not attend appointments at that particular hospital but points out that we cannot really say that the major problem is a lack of transport. In fact the MidCentral District Health Board study gives 27 reasons and although transport is the most important of them it accounts for only 13 or 14 percent of the “did not attends”. 
Pita Paraone 
: Is the Minister aware that the National Travel Assistance Policy has been patchy at best in meeting the transport needs of seniors and others and that those district health boards—such as Taranaki—that have the lowest rates of non-attendance also have their own fleet of transport vehicles specifically to address this matter? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I am aware of a bus that runs twice daily from New Plymouth to Hawera and back and indeed another one that whips round the mountain. The Taranaki District Health Board does have a good “did not attend” rate but if one looks at the whole country one finds that there are very low “did not attend” rates in areas where there is poor public transport—Northland being an example and South Canterbury another—whereas in some other parts of the country where there is very good public transport such as Auckland the “did not attend” rate is actually high. 
Pita Paraone 
: Does the Minister believe that rather than the health system incurring a cost of $57 million a year a small investment by the district health boards nationwide in transport services would greatly reduce the number of those not attending appointments and result in not only a significant financial saving but better health outcomes for those affected; and is he prepared to direct district health boards to take this simple step? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The district health boards are certainly free to take this step and I thank the member for his interest in this issue; it is an important one. I do however disagree with the member in his assertion that “did not attends” and transport issues are inextricably linked. They are not. The “did not attend” rates in Auckland where the transport system is very good are much higher—in fact twice as high—than they are in South Canterbury where the public transport system is nowhere near as good. So it is not at all clear that transport and non-attendance are as closely linked as that. The reasons for not attending are very complex; there are very many of them. If the member wants a copy of the research from the MidCentral District Health Board he can have it for the asking. 
Pita Paraone 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the report on “did not attend” numbers percentages and costings per district health board. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Immigration Service—Confidence 
5.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he have confidence in the Immigration Service; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes; it is a hard-working and conscientious department. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that a Mr Jameel ur-Rehman client No. 27540653 came to New Zealand on false documentation and does he represent one of the 596 identity-fraud cases identified by the Auditor-General as of February this year? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is with great respect to the member opposite always regrettable when members pose a generic question and then follow it up with a case-specific supplementary question. However in view of the recent publication of an article on this case I can give the member some information. I understand that the information in the relevant article in  
Investigate  
magazine came from one unsubstantiated source. At this stage I am advised that New Zealand law enforcement agencies have not been able to support any of the allegations made in the article. I am in the process of receiving and considering briefs from Department of Labour officials on this matter. There is an investigation under way but early indications are that the information is unsubstantiated and may be malicious in nature. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Can the Minister advise on the individual number of case decisions that the Immigration Service in New Zealand makes? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that approximately 4 million border crossings into New Zealand are made annually and in addition in the 2006-07 year nearly half a million individual case decisions were made by immigration officers. In any such system not every decision will be perfect; however I am satisfied that where errors in judgment or system failures occur the department actively seeks to address those. The Immigration Business Transformation programme is looking to strengthen both systems and procedures and will go a long way towards future-proofing immigration processes. It is a shame to see the Opposition attempting to derail these significant changes by the manufactured politics of individual cases. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why is Mr Rehman still in New Zealand when his cousin who arrived under similar circumstances has already been deported and when Immigration New Zealand has evidence that Mr Rehman supports terrorist organisations and received military training at a terrorist base near the Afghan border? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member is correct. The gentleman’s cousin a Mr Anwar was removed from New Zealand after refusing to answer questions posed to him by the Immigration Service. I am advised that Mr Rehman however did answer the questions posed to him. However I have asked for a further report on this case. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why does Mr Rehman still have a work permit when Immigration New Zealand has irrefutable evidence that Jameel ur-Rehman obtained his work permit for New Zealand using a false document? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It would be a great disappointment to the House if the member opposite determined what was irrefutable from  
Investigate 
 magazine. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why is Mr Rehman still in New Zealand when Immigration New Zealand has evidence he sent money back to a brother directly involved in a terrorist organisation—an offence under New Zealand’s Terrorism Suppression Act? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I repeat that although I have called for a further report on this case I am advised that to date the only evidence that has been made available to either the Department of Labour or other relevant agencies comes from one unsubstantiated source a source who had a personal grievance against the person named in the article and who had lost a case against that person under the Employment Relations Authority. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How many of the other 596 identity-fraud cases identified by the Auditor-General involve people with highly suspect backgrounds like Mr Rehman? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member opposite just keeps digging. If he is taking the definition of “highly suspect” from one Ian Wishart he is violating an important principle of our common law that a gentleman wherever he comes from or whatever his name sounds like is innocent until proven guilty. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I seek leave to table the statutory declaration of Jarved Chaudhry director of Hamilton where he— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could I just seek your guidance as to what the statutory declaration was about? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the Standing Orders state that the document should be identified and I think you did clearly identify what it was. You may seek leave of the House if you wish to make a statement to that effect; there is nothing to prevent you from doing that. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Under the Standing Orders you are meant to allow a member to identify what a document is actually about. Now certainly I had no intention of reading the document but this is impossible; the statutory declaration could have been one stating that this person had evidence that the Speaker of the Parliament was involved in all sorts of activities. Now it did not but you are not to know that because you did not allow me to identify what the statutory declaration was about. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I do not think I need any assistance but I thank the member. Tabling a document is not to be an opportunity to make a statement. The rules are quite clear that as long as the document is identified—not necessarily the content of it but the document—then that is sufficient. The member kindly did that for the House and there was no objection to it being tabled. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I seek leave to table the statutory declaration of a student of Hamilton where he outlines the involvement of Mr Rehman in terrorist organisations. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I seek leave to table the statutory declaration of a further student from Hamilton where he details the family’s involvement of Mr Rehman— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Peter Brown 
: Is it not true that our immigration laws are in a mess and that that is the principal reason for the review and the forthcoming major overhaul of the immigration laws? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member is indeed correct; it is not true. 
Food Labelling—US Country-of-origin Labelling 
6.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: Can he confirm that the New Zealand Government has been lobbying the United States Department of Agriculture not to introduce country-of-origin labelling on meat fish and other perishable agricultural goods; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 Yes; the Government has been both consistent and open in opposing mandatory country-of-origin labelling proposed by protectionist groups in the United States which is designed to damage our exports. Such labelling imposes costs on New Zealand exporters of New Zealand food without providing any advantage at all to the United States consumer in terms of food standards or food safety. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can he confirm that it is the Government’s position then that consumers in New Zealand and in the United States are not entitled to know where their food comes from because it could affect the profits of the meat and dairy industries; in other words that it is the Government’s policy to put the interests of two large exporters ahead of the democratic rights of consumers to know where their food comes from? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: This Government’s position is to support the exporters of very safe and high-standard New Zealand food against having big costs imposed on them for the purpose of making New Zealand produce uncompetitive with United States produce without in any sense whatsoever improving the safety or standard of food to the consumer. 
Tim Barnett 
: What is New Zealand’s key concern in relation to mandatory country-of-origin labelling on our food exports to the United States? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The key concerns are the costs that such labelling would impose on our beef exports as a result of labelling and record keeping. A report by the United States General Accounting Office found that such costs would be high and would be particularly high where the goods had to be segregated. The fact is that two-thirds of our beef—our major export to the United States—is manufacturing beef which is ground and mixed with beef from other countries and the United States. If we had to label that that would impose compliance costs that would make our food exports more costly and less competitive than the United States product which is of course what motivates many of those promoting country-of-origin labelling in the United States. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can he explain what the huge compliance costs are in putting a label on fresh agricultural products such as meat fish cauliflower and fruit and what the expense is in putting a label next to a bunch of cauliflowers; and can he confirm that the meat he is complaining about—which is mixed together into hamburgers—is for the most part sold in take-away outlets which are not the subject of the legislation? So can he confirm in other words that the Government is wildly exaggerating compliance costs to somehow try to protect two export industries—the dairy and the meat-exporting industries? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I cannot confirm that at all. The protecting that is going on is the protecting of US producers against fair competition from New Zealand. As far as I know we do not export cauliflowers to the United States but we do export one hell of a load of beef and two-thirds of that beef is mixed. As far as I understand it the requirements that would be imposed by the regulations would require a labelling of that product which would be very expensive thus making our exports less competitive. The member may support making goods less competitive when they have no impact on food safety or standards but I do not and this Government does not. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is he aware that the overwhelming majority of Americans—92 percent according to one recent survey—want mandatory country-of-origin labelling and does he think his department has a mandate from the people of New Zealand who also overwhelmingly want country-of-origin labelling on single-ingredient foods to seek to interfere in American domestic politics against the clear wishes of American citizens; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: What I do know is that this Government and this Parliament have a mandate from New Zealand to stand up for New Zealand agricultural exporters whose produce constitutes two-thirds of all exports from this country. This Government also has a mandate to oppose such blatantly protectionist measures that various elements that have been lobbying Congress are seeking to impose. We will stand up for New Zealanders’ rights to export in a fair and competitive market. We will also stand up for needs of food safety and food standards but food safety and food standards have nothing at all to do with country-of-origin labelling though the member repeatedly tries to confuse those two things. 
Tim Barnett 
: Do New Zealand submissions on country-of-origin labelling constitute interference in the domestic affairs of the United States as alleged by Sue Kedgley? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The claim that Sue Kedgley has just made is absolutely bizarre. New Zealand made the submissions in response to the request of the United States Department of Agriculture for submissions on the proposed mandatory labelling from all World Trade Organization members. The invitation allows countries whose trade may be affected such as New Zealand to have an input into the regulation process. To claim that we are wrongly interfering in the domestic politics of the United States is absolutely wrong; we were invited to make the submissions by the Government of the United States. What is it about that that the member does not understand? 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why did the Government’s submission to the United States Department of Agriculture say: “New Zealand does not believe that mandatory country-of-origin labelling would benefit consumers.” when a majority of New Zealand consumers have said in surveys that they want mandatory country-of-origin labelling and see it as basic information like the ingredient panel or the nutrition label? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: We said that because that is the position of the New Zealand Government and I would say three-quarters if not a lot more than that of the members of this House. The member cannot confuse or try to have the public confuse the question of food safety which is legitimately regulated with country-of-origin labelling which has nothing to do with safety or standards but can be placed on the product by the retailer or by the producer if they so wish. It is not something where there are grounds for the Government to step in with a heavy hand to impose. 
Sue Kedgley 
: How can he claim that country-of-origin labelling is not a food safety issue at a time when global food scandals—particularly over exports from China—have led to product withdrawals and food being held at the United States’ border until it is proven to be safe? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is doing it again: she is confusing country-of-origin labelling with food safety. The two things are absolutely separate. This country has very strong regulations to do with food safety and food standards. It does not mandatorily impose country-of-origin labelling on food products because that has nothing to do with the issues that the member is constantly trying to confuse. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table a survey showing that 92 percent of American respondents said they want mandatory— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Early Childhood Services—Licensing Standards 
7.  
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What minimum standards do licensed early childhood services such as creches at pools and gyms have to comply with? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Like all early childhood facilities creches in pools and gyms have to keep children safe. They need to have safe facilities and they need to have adequately qualified police-checked staff to supervise children. They need to comply with the fact that no parent would want to place his or her child in an unsafe environment. The regulations are designed to ensure that creches meet these standards. 
Paula Bennett 
: Should a free child-minding service in a safe cordoned-off area in a gym which has adult supervision for up to six children for no more than an hour at a time with parents just metres away have to be licensed? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is worth just rehashing very very briefly the history of the regulations. The regulations that are in place came in in 1989. That means that they were in place for 9 years of a National Government. Labour has just begun to review those regulations and there will be an opportunity for a question such as that to be raised as people discuss the regulations. The regulations are currently on the website. If the member would like to look at them and discuss them with the people who are writing to her she is welcome to do so. Unlike the National Government which for 9 years administered the regulations exactly as she is complaining about them we are having a look at them. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What steps is the Government taking to lift the quality of early childhood education in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As part of the Government’s push to continue to improve the quality of early childhood services in 2002 we announced a review of the entire regulation framework for early childhood education services. Since 2003 the ministry has been reviewing that system. Last year some of the changes to the Education Act 1989 were made. In October this year all services will have a further opportunity to contribute to the draft criteria of the requirements that services will need to meet in order to be licensed. We have received over 1800 submissions and have had positive feedback about the first draft. The new system is designed to be more flexible and transparent for services and to provide quality standards. I repeat to the member—because she may not be aware of this—that the rules that the National Government operated under are the rules currently in place. We are currently reviewing those rules and this is a chance for the member to make her views known. 
Paula Bennett 
: If the Minister is currently reviewing that legislation then why is his ministry writing to centres within gyms and telling them they are running illegally; and does the Minister accept that it is ridiculous to make a gym such as Devine Fitness license its child-minding service which is a special adult-supervised area right next to the parents when if the gym did not supervise the children and let them run around the gym equipment it would not need a licence? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Ministry of Education responds to formal complaints. The issue that seems to have kicked off this current round of media inspection of centres concerns the centre in Nelson. Someone made a formal complaint about the gym not supervising children correctly and therefore representatives from the Ministry of Education went around—as they are required to do—and discussed the issue with the gym. In the end I think that the gym has decided to close the centre. The basic principle is that all children should be safe. Although it may be a bit of a myth that people stay for a short time at gyms in fact it does seem that people put their children in gym creches for up to 3 hours at a time. Therefore the children ought to be properly supervised. 
Paula Bennett 
: Will the Minister close down the child-minding service at the community-run Motueka Recreation Fitness Centre which provides a supervised play-pen three mornings a week for 1 hour for up to five children with the parents exercising just 15 metres away from it because it does not provide a sleep area? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I know it amuses the member to get up and raise one case after another like this. The basic principle that the National Government operated under—as does this Government—is that these children should be safe. Unlike National we are allowing a discussion around the regulations at the present time. Perhaps instead of going on about individual cases that would have happened under a National Government she should get stuck into the regulatory review. 
Paula Bennett 
: What response does the Minister have to those mothers in Nelson who have had their creche at the cityfitness gym closed because the Minister insists that it be licensed even though they are happy with the facility and its level of care and safety or does the Minister know better than those parents? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I pointed out to the member before the centre she is talking about was the recipient of a formal complaint. The Ministry of Education has to respond to formal complaints. The parent who complained was unhappy about the system that was operating in that particular facility. That is what the ministry responded to. 
Paula Bennett 
: What choices do parents who want to exercise have when the Minister is closing down unlicensed premises and when according to a Fitness New Zealand national survey the number of licensed childcare centres in gyms has decreased from 28 in 2004 to just 16 in 2007 due to excessive bureaucracy and licensing legislation? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I remind people that the National Government operated under exactly these rules for 9 years. I would say to people that the central principle is the safety of their children. I would also say I really approve of parents getting fit. 
Paula Bennett 
: I seek leave to table the letter from the Ministry of Education on 11 September to the Motueka Recreation Fitness Centre. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I seek leave to table the updated statement of Early Childhood Desirable Objectives and Practices which regulates the early childhood services that have been referred to that was given Cabinet approval in 1998. 
Document not tabled. 
Iraq—New Zealand Troop Deployment 
8.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What reports if any has he received on committing New Zealand troops to fight in Iraq? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I have seen the  
New Zealand Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) 
 dated 18 March 2003. It records that all 27 National MPs voted for a resolution moved by the then ACT leader Richard Prebble on the invasion of Iraq which “calls on the New Zealand Government to offer all practical support to the ‘coalition of the willing’.” There can be no other interpretation of that than National’s readiness and support for committing New Zealand soldiers to the war in Iraq. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table the documents showing that the practical support the Government gave the invasion of Iraq was the transport of troops on Air New Zealand. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I will finish the answer to the question which no doubt embarrasses Mr Brownlee who voted for that resolution. What that unanimous vote by the National Party represents is the absolute falsehood of recent claims by John Key Murray McCully and others that the National Party never supported sending New Zealand troops to Iraq. That vote is proof positive that they are speaking untruths and misleading the public. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Unfortunately I had huge difficulty in hearing the last part of that answer. What reports is the Minister referring to in the last part of his answer which I was actually able to hear? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are a number of reports. TV3’s  
Campbell Live 
 for example records Mr Key saying: “Our caucus did not support sending troops to Iraq.” and that he personally did not support this. Yet in March 2003 every member of the National caucus including Mr Key voted for that resolution. A second report was in July of this year. Mr Key again said that National would not have sent troops to Iraq. That obviously is a false statement. The third and last report came from Murray McCully on  
Agenda 
. He again denied that the National Party would have sent troops to Iraq. All of those claims are demonstrably contradicted by the fact that all members of the National caucus voted for a resolution that clearly indicated their support for sending troops to Iraq at the time of the invasion. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I seek leave to table a document showing that the Minister deployed 60 combat engineers to Iraq in June— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Before we make a decision on tabling that document I ask whether the member can produce evidence that the engineers went to Iraq for the purposes of combat. That statement is demonstrably false as well. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The point of order was to seek leave to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on retraction and apology for the claims made given the clear evidence that such claims are false? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Now apologise! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: When the windbag on the other side of the House wants to shut up I will answer that question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members let the Minister deliver his answer—a short answer—in silence so we can move on and this disorder can cease. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have not seen any apology or retraction from the Leader of the Opposition which is disappointing. It is one thing to show poor judgment at the time and to decide that troops should be sent to Iraq; it is another thing in relation to credibility and honesty to deny that that decision was ever made yet that is what the Leader of the Opposition is doing. This is an opportunity now for Mr Key and his colleagues to stand up and apologise or to make an explanation for their actions at that time. 
Accident Compensation—Employers’ Liability 
9.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does she stand by her statement yesterday that she agrees with “the principle that accredited employers should continue to have the right to determine themselves whether an injury is work-related or non - work-related and to revoke that decision if after reconsidering the facts they change their view.”; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes. The agreement that accredited employers have with the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) gives accredited employers the same powers as ACC to make the decision to provide cover for a work-related injury and to alter their decision when the original decision was incorrect. 
Anne Tolley 
: How can the Minister reconcile that with her statements yesterday when the correspondence I tabled in the House from ACC to AFFCO dated 15 October 2004 9 June 2006 and 4 April 2007 shows that AFFCO has consistently argued for 4 years that this gang shooting was clearly not a work-related accident and that it did not accept that a couple of guys who sneaked out of the workplace during a break to smoke a joint should be said to be having a break for a meal a rest or refreshment? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: On 22 April 2003 the case manager employed by the third-party provider contracted to AFFCO wrote to Mr Storey saying: “Your employer AFFCO is an accredited employer … We have considered your application for cover under the Act. We are pleased to advise you that the injury you sustained on 8 April 03 has been accepted for cover under section 20 of the Act which addresses personal injury and your employer acknowledges your injury to be work-related.” The fact that later when the costs became very obvious to the employer the employer decided to relitigate the situation does not meet the threshold of new information of facts and of the basis of an incorrect decision. But even if it had done so AFFCO should have revoked its decision. It has never done so. 
Anne Tolley 
: Can we take it then that the Minister is basing all her responses on the letter from AFFCO to the worker just 2 weeks after the shooting before the full details were known and when two separate and different claim forms had been lodged; but is it not true that when AFFCO discovered that the Occupational Safety and Health Service had not investigated—because it was seen as a police matter not a work accident—and the full facts of the gang shooting became clear AFFCO notified ACC that the accident was not work-related and therefore it was ACC’s responsibility and not AFFCO’s? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No that is not the case actually. Under section 65 of the legislation as I explained to the member and the House yesterday AFFCO should have revoked its decision to provide cover which it had granted on 22 April 2003; otherwise the decision stands. The revocation is the trigger for the claim to then be lodged with ACC for its consideration. But the Accredited Employers Programme does not give AFFCO or any other accredited employer the right to say: “This is looking very expensive. We think the taxpayer of New Zealand should carry the liability despite the fact that under the law we accepted cover and haven’t revoked it.” That is not how the scheme should work. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Since when are gang shootings in public workplace-related? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I know that that is the way it would work under a private insurance regime which that member proposes but it should not work that way under New Zealand law. 
Darien Fenton 
: What does an accredited employer agreement involve? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: An accredited employer arrangement involves employers who meet certain good health and safety criteria being able to manage their own work-related injuries. In exchange for employers taking on that responsibility they receive significant discounts on their levies. Accredited employers that have an employee who sustains a significant and costly injury should not be able to go back on their agreement simply because they feel that it would cost them too much. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s not an accident; it’s a gang shoot-out. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Frankly it is irrelevant whether he injured his toe or whether it was a gang-related shooting. The legislation for years has been consistent in the definition of a workplace injury. It relates to the time and the place rather than to how the injury was incurred. 
Anne Tolley 
: How can the Minister stand by her statement yesterday that AFFCO “made the decision. It was handed over to ACC a year later because it was a complex case.” when the facts are that AFFCO consistently argued that ACC had taken over the management of the file itself in order to prevent AFFCO from issuing Mr Storey with a notice that the accident was not a workplace accident? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Because that is not a fact. There was nothing at all prohibiting AFFCO or stopping AFFCO between 2003 and its reconsideration—there was nothing at all standing in its way—from invoking section 65 of the Act which is very clear. AFFCO just revokes its decision. 
Anne Tolley 
: How can the Minister stand by her statement yesterday that “the worker concerned was inside a security fence” when the fact—as seen on TV last night—is that the car-park was outside the secured plant area and open to general use by staff and the public? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: There is a process for resolving disputes with an accredited employer who wants the taxpayer to pick up what is lawfully its obligation. Given that that accredited employer has already breached its confidentiality agreement I am surprised that the member persists along these lines. There is a process to revoke a cover decision; AFFCO has not taken it up. There is a process for resolving disputes— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is very difficult to hear the answer! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: —and AFFCO should comply with it. The puzzling question is why when the law—which was unchanged throughout the entire 1990s and prior to that—determines the boundaries between a workplace injury and a non-workplace injury the member is proposing that the taxpayers of New Zealand pick up AFFCO’s liability? 
Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was a very long answer but at no stage during that answer did the Minister address the question I had asked which was about the security fence—why the Minister had said the worker was inside the security fence when in fact as shown clearly on television the worker was outside the security fence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Could the Minister please address that part of the question. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: With respect I did so at the very beginning of my answer and then I elaborated on that process. I explained to the member that when facts are in dispute when people have different views and different perspectives there is a process for resolution of those facts. 
Anne Tolley 
: How can the Minister stand by her statement to the House yesterday that she did not intervene because it was 2 days before “ACC thought a settlement might be reached” when the correspondence tabled yesterday from ACC to AFFCO makes it very clear that ACC was not budging one iota from deeming this vicious gang-shooting a work-related accident; does the Minister now accept that she got the whole story wrong? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Absolutely not. I know from the correspondence— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ignored the previous outburst of the member interjecting because he has started this House down various tracks in the past but I am not going to ignore the repetition of that kind of comment from that member. He is the last person in this House to start those kinds of accusations in this House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Members on this side of the House regularly have to enjoy the replay on TV of Mr Goff saying: “Tell the truth Mr Key.” “Tell the truth Mr Key.” “Tell the truth Mr Key.” Far from changes to what is acceptable parliamentary comment in this House having come from the National Party they have come from the Labour Party. Despite the repeated playing of that particular comment from Mr Goff on television stations there has been no consequence for him. Therefore the assumption is that such a comment is perfectly acceptable. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Of course if the member had wished to raise an objection to those comments at the time he should have done. He did not do so. It is perhaps a matter of some significance that he and his colleagues remained silent at that point. I have raised a point of order immediately upon Dr Smith saying “Tell the truth for a change!”. Madam Speaker I suggest to you that even if the first occurrence was not sufficient the second added to it. That member of all people in this House should not start getting into those kinds of exchanges. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have listened carefully to the arguments and I think there is merit in both points of view that have been put on the phrase “Tell the truth!”. Obviously it is a phrase that creates disorder in this House so from now on it will be considered an unparliamentary term whoever uses that comment. I am warning members that it is an unparliamentary term—questioning who tells the truth—to be thrown across the Chamber by anyone. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: When I received representation via a third party to intervene in the situation that the member raised yesterday I sought information from ACC— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order! It is very hard to hear the answer. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: —about the process of decision making and as part of the information I received back I was told that 2 days later was the deadline for the final response from AFFCO to a proposed settlement. I did not think it was appropriate first of all that I intervene in a process that was clearly set out in legislation and was being complied with. Secondly I did not think it was appropriate that a Minister in Government be used as a lever to up the amount of money that AFFCO might get off the taxpayer. That member clearly disagrees with that. 
Health Services—Inequalities 
10.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports on the reduction in health inequalities under a Labour-led Government? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I launched the  
Tracking Disparity 
 research last month. The research showed that although inequality in health outcomes between ethnic groups and across income brackets grew steeply in the late 1980s and right through the 1990s it appears that those gaps may have stopped growing and may have even started to narrow. We can celebrate this early sign of success and acknowledge those who work in the health system to deliver it but the disparities are still large and they are still unacceptable. 
Smoking—Anti-smoking Initiatives 
11. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
on behalf of  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received on the success of the Government’s role in reducing smoking? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 It is such good news. New Zealand Ireland and Finland were jointly awarded the Global Smokefree Partnership’s Extraordinary Award last week in recognition of their exceptional and outstanding commitment in the development of guidelines for Article 8 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This is an outstanding achievement for a lot of hard work done by a lot of very good officials. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What other reports has he received on the Government’s role in reducing smoking? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The first New Zealand Tobacco Use Survey was released in June this year and shows that New Zealanders want to quit this habit that kills nearly 5000 of us every year. According to the survey two-thirds of smokers in this country have tried to quit in the past 5 years. I would also like to refer to another Health Sponsorship Council monitor survey that showed that 90 percent of the population support the right to live and work in a smoke-free environment—endorsement of this Government’s change the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Act 2003 which has been an outstanding success. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: How is it that the Minister can say the Government’s role is an outstanding achievement when under his Government’s watch lung cancer rates in women are steadily rising and smoking remains high in young people in Maori and in Pacific Island people? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: It is true that we have some very sad statistics around lung cancer rates as a result of years of neglect by National Governments in this policy area. There have been improvements although we would like to see more in the area of reducing smoking rates particularly with young Maori women. That is why we committed over $10 million extra in this area to reduce smoking across New Zealand. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: I seek leave to table page 62 of the Ministry of Health’s  
Cancer: New Registrations and Deaths 2003 
— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: I seek leave to table a report by Action on Smoking and Health that shows smoking remains high in Maori and Pacific Islanders and in young people. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: I seek leave to table the 2005  
New Zealand Medical Journal 
 article by Shaun Holt which seriously questions the Government’s— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Minister confirm that when the smoke-free legislation came before the House it was opposed by the overwhelming majority of National members and in fact they put in their manifesto a pledge to repeal it and is he aware that that is still their position and is that the position of Dr Coleman for example— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not acceptable. The Minister knows there is no responsibility for National policy. The first part of the question is acceptable. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It does not really matter too much whether the Minister answers the question but I would ask you to consider whether there is ministerial responsibility by any Labour Minister for the National Party’s voting record because that was the first part of the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Brownlee. If it is on a bill for which the Minister is responsible yes but he is not responsible for the party’s policy. But certainly if it relates to that yes the Minister is responsible. Would the Minister please reply briefly. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is not something this Minister is responsible for. This happened two Parliaments back. I would ask you again to consider whether any Minister in the current Government can be responsible for the National Party’s voting record on everything. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I am almost tempted to support the member because it would be very helpful of course from a Government perspective if one could ask questions relating only to the current Minister in any portfolio and not anything that might cover a previous Minister within at least the same Government. But I am sure that you are going to rule that that would be far too friendly a ruling from a Government perspective and should be rejected. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will rule on it. If there is a bill before the House for which the Minister was responsible then the Minister can address that question that relates to matters relating to it including the voting on it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to be helpful to you. This in fact was a member’s bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that as well but it does not alter the facts. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am sad to report that many National Party members voted against this legislation and if I could quote one particular member he said: “We will be in an extraordinarily grubby country as a result of this stupid legislation.” I am pleased to say that it is not true. In fact the vast majority of bars and workplaces are far cleaner as a result of this legislation. The person who made that claim was Gerry Brownlee. 
Te Puni Kokiri—Confidence 
12.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Does he have confidence in Te Puni Kokiri; if so why? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Yes I have confidence in Te Puni Kokiri because its employees are hard-working and conscientious public servants. 
Phil Heatley 
: Does he consider Te Puni Kokiri’s seven aquaculture hui a success given that only 143 people turned up across the whole country when Te Puni Kokiri spent over $180000 on the hui; if so why? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am more than certain as that member knows that they were more than successful. They are one part of a whole lot of consultation that is going on. Within that costing there has been preparatory stuff that will prepare Maori as major owners in the aquaculture industry to do better and be better involved. 
Dave Hereora 
: What successes for Maori has Te Puni Kokiri contributed to? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: There are several. More Maori are working. Maori own 56 percent of the aquaculture industry in this country and they are good partners. They know how to work with local authorities. More Maori are moving into semi-skilled and highly skilled occupations and more Maori are earning a lot more than when we came in. 
Phil Heatley 
: Was it good value spending $26300 on the Whanganui-Taranaki hui given that only five people turned up costing Te Puni Kokiri $5260 per attendee? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: This member has quite a habit of misconstruing facts. The facts that I have here are that in Whanganui it cost $4583 and the travel and— 
Paula Bennett 
: That’s a lot of kai. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The member should know. She should come out of the closet about being Maori. But the member Phil Heatley certainly misconstrues those facts and those figures as he has done before. 
Phil Heatley 
: Was the value for the five people who turned up to the Whanganui-Taranaki hui the fact that 10 officials turned up and therefore the people were able to get 2:1 attention? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It was not just about Maori leaders who represent heaps of Maori from Whanganui being there but also about local authority officials being there and Te Puni Kokiri officials being there and people understanding what the hui was about. That member should get his facts right. At the end of the day I am quite clear that he misconstrues the truth. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the Minister’s own figures given in answers to parliamentary questions showing the attendance and costs. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Tariana Turia 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. Since the legislation can the Minister tell the House how many new aquaculture farms have been established by and for Maori and where they are? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Since the moratorium has been lifted there is more participation by Maori in the aquaculture industry but certainly it is a complex issue where all parties like big fisheries companies and regional authorities have to work towards bringing them together. We are certainly on our way to making sure that Maori are more involved in that industry. 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was very specific. I want to know how many new aquaculture farms have been established by and for Maori and where they are. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Can the Minister elaborate on his answer to address that point. We will have it in silence please. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: There are none but in the local authority area there are issues about aquaculture management areas and new spaces. The growth factor has been in Maori taking more shareholding in a whole lot of big companies. They are the biggest fish-owners in this country and I know that that member has another opinion to try to put that asunder. 
Tariana Turia 
: Can the Minister inform the House who the Maori economic development manager of Aquaculture New Zealand is given that Te Puni Kokiri provided $70000 towards the salary and what expertise in aquaculture has this person and will the reports be publicly available? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Certainly and that is the commitment by Te Puni Kokiri to ensure alongside the new developing aquaculture forum that there was a Maori interest in there and we paid that salary. There are those issues in relation to slowness in opening new space and we clearly have three settlement options. That member knows about them. 
Phil Heatley 
: What did attendees say at the hui when Te Puni Kokiri told them that 2½ years after the Minister promised them 2000 hectares of space in the 2004 Maori aquaculture settlement not a single hectare has been found anywhere in the country; were they gutted? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I was not at the hui but I do speak to the staff generally. The Government and the settlement options have been quite clear—an additional 20 percent of new aquaculture management area space can be identified and allocated to meet pre-commencement obligations thereby providing Maori with up to 40 percent of new space in some areas and there will be purchasing of existing marine farms for transfer from 1 January 2008—that member is afraid of this—and paying an equivalent amount from 1 January 2013. I tell the House that I do have a lot of faith in Te Puni Kokiri staff but that member wrote me a letter on 17 July complaining—at about the Brash time—about how unprofessional those people were and that people were turned away from Te Puni Kokiri’s door because they were National Party supporters. That was a whole lot of rubbish. He went to the press saying that he damned those poor people who took a whole lot of umbrage at that and he kept on with the fib. At the end of the day he found out that it was not true. He knew it was not true and he carried on attacking that ministry. Shame on him! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister will recall that that is an unparliamentary term. We no longer use that term in this House. I know that it will take members a while to get used to it but you had better get used to it by tomorrow. Would the Minister please withdraw and apologise. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Phil Heatley 
: Is the Minister embarrassed that he ran hui on aquaculture right across the country and no one turned up probably because the Minister has not turned up with the space that he promised Maori 2½ years ago? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am not embarrassed because that member is picking one hui. There have been a whole lot of hui over and above the information that he has. He is talking a whole lot of hooey because he has not been there. I tell him that Maori are the biggest owners in aquaculture and he had better get used to it. The reason the hui went on there is that we contracted with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research which has international experience and modern science putting out into the open the opportunities that Maori are really clear about wanting to be part of. He talks a whole lot of rubbish. 
Phil Heatley 
: Given that the Minister is concerned that I am talking only about the Whanganui hui where only five people turned up is he pleased that in Canterbury only 16 people turned up costing Te Puni Kokiri several thousand dollars for each of them; and is he pleased that for the 16 who turned up there were 11 officials to greet them? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am pleased the officials were there because that is how we need to sort this matter out. But those people who turned up represented thousands of beneficiaries and what Maori are getting used to is running their business by themselves not having people like that controlling it. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the very low attendance figures for Maori at the hui. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the very high attendance figures for Government officials at the hui. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the Minister’s own very high costs for the hui. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the Government’s unfulfilled aquaculture settlement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
167: I seek leave to table the reports on how Maori are participating at a dramatic pace in aquaculture and are adding value to this country’s economic status. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.