Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:641;Page:11557] 
Wednesday 5 September 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Regulatory Responsibility Bill—Official View 
1. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: Has she had her officials consider my Regulatory Responsibility Bill that is now before the Commerce Committee; if so has she formed a view whether some form of legislation is desirable to combat red tape? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Yes. I have agreed to the chair of the committee’s request that Ministry of Economic Development officials act as advisers to the Commerce Committee. The Government is committed to ensuring a high-quality regulatory environment in New Zealand and as part of that tomorrow I will announce the results of the Quality Regulation Review. I am also interested in any other initiatives that might strengthen the regulatory environment and in that context I am prepared to consider a legislative framework that enhances the regulatory environment for business. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of that answer would she envisage her officials providing advice and indeed drafting support to the committee if the committee concluded that a reworded bill is necessary to support a high-quality regulatory environment? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As the member is aware I arranged for the bill to be referred to the Law Commission before it was introduced into the House for its first reading. I did so because I take the matter very seriously and I am very grateful that the member has brought the matter to the attention of the House in this way. I wanted to ensure that I was fully briefed on any potential risks that might arise in the way the bill had been drafted and I have asked my officials to assist the committee to the fullest extent possible as it considers the bill. So in essence the answer is yes. 
Maryan Street 
: What has the Government already done to strengthen the regulatory environment for business? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: On 1 April this year a new regulatory impact analysis regime was implemented. The regulatory impact analysis regime now requires Government agencies to confirm that the principles of the code of good regulatory practice have been complied with and that analysis has been undertaken in accordance with the new requirements. The changes also include giving more teeth to the regulatory impact assessment unit that assesses the quality of the more important regulatory impact statements and requiring discussion documents to include a draft regulatory impact statement or include questions that would assist the drafting of the regulatory impact statement. These changes have already enhanced confidence in the Government’s approach to regulatory responsibility. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does she believe that with cross-party support our Parliament may well be able to deliver through my bill a statute that provides a systematic process for all legislation to ensure the high-quality legislation that New Zealanders so desperately want and that such an outcome indeed is one that all of our Parliament may well be able to agree upon? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Despite nearly 17 years in Parliament I still think anything is possible when people put their minds to it. On this occasion I believe that everyone is agreed on the outcome which is a high-quality regulatory environment as evidenced by the Government’s actions to date. I look forward to working with that member and indeed all parties in the House on this. 
Air New Zealand—Confidential Information 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has she or any member of her Cabinet received correspondence from the chair of Air New Zealand expressing concern that she has used information given to her in confidence; if so what was her response? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Letters have been received expressing a view from Air New Zealand. I received no information from Air New Zealand and I am advised that the information Air New Zealand gave other Ministers cannot be regarded as being subject to the confidentiality deed between it and the Government. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that she is bound by the confidentiality agreements regardless of whether she received the information through officials or directly in person? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would be bound by such an agreement if the information was confidential and subject to it. It was not. 
Darren Hughes 
: Has the Prime Minister received any advice on whether the public debate on Air New Zealand’s charter flights has affected its reputation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have seen advice only today that Moody’s has affirmed—today—Air New Zealand’s current credit rating and has actually improved its outlook from “stable” to “positive”. So I can only assume the airline is thought to be in good heart. 
Keith Locke 
: Did the Prime Minister have a duty to provide New Zealanders with appropriate information about Air New Zealand charters such as that to Honiara; and how can that be at all wrong if there were no security issues for New Zealand Australia or Air New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As is well known Air New Zealand regularly releases information about chartered flights itself. The fact is that I referred to a charter flight to Honiara 3 days after it had happened. Anyone who has been to the Solomons knows that it would not be a secret for too long that 3 days before an Air New Zealand plane had landed at Henderson Airfield. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does she recall her public statement in respect of Alexander Downer: “My response is the very day after he said that Air NZ flew Australian Defence Force troops to Honiara so perhaps things don’t get actioned very quickly in Australia”; and what effect does she believe that statement had on Air New Zealand’s prospects of retaining substantial profitable business with the Australian defence forces? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would be surprised if it had any effect because about 4 days before I made the statement Mr Downer had told the New Zealand High Commissioner in Australia that Australia would not be using Air New Zealand charter flights in future. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that it is appropriate for the Prime Minister to use confidential and other commercial information about Air New Zealand for political purposes when the Government has signed an agreement that in letter and in spirit it has agreed not to do so? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I repeat: there can be no breach of confidentiality in talking about the fact that a plane had landed at Henderson Airfield in the Solomon Islands 3 days earlier when a lot of people had seen it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the confidentiality agreement between Air New Zealand and the Government covers financial information relevant to such matters as the Public Finance Act and that Treasury has advised that the information given to the Government in relation to the flight to Honiara could not actually come within that range? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can absolutely confirm that that is the advice that Treasury has given Dr Cullen. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it now the case that the Government believes that it can use—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please proceed. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it now the case that the Government believes that it can use any information in any way it likes for any political purpose without any regard for the effect on Air New Zealand’s business or its value to shareholders and taxpayers? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Of course not and the question is transparently silly. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is what causes—please be seated; I am on my feet. Now members it is these exchanges across the House that cause disorder. I ask the member to ask his supplementary question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can we now take it that the Government’s response to the considered letter from the chairman of Air New Zealand is that he is wrong and does not know what he is talking about that the Government can say what it likes to aggravate the Australian Government that there has been no impact on Air New Zealand’s commercial interests and that the Government will keep on with that activity—of using commercial information for its own political purposes? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Madam Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member for somewhere—where are you from Trevor; Lower Hutt?— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The point of order? 
Hon Bill English 
: —made a remark across the House that I found offensive. I ask him to withdraw— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member found that to be offensive. Would the member please withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Of course Madam Speaker. I apologise. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The questions were transparently silly. I repeat: there was no commercial in-confidence information released. There was information about a flight that had occurred publicly 3 days before that. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it now the Prime Minister’s stance that the chairman of Air New Zealand is wrong and should never have been concerned about it that none of her actions have affected the relationship between the Australian Government and Air New Zealand and that if it suits her political purposes she will continue to aggravate the Australian Government with reckless disregard for Air New Zealand’s interests? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Quite clearly there has been no commercial in-confidence information used. I can say to the member who got the worst-ever result for the National Party that this Government is very committed to good relations with the Australian Government. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister recall— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Such a success in 2002. 
Hon Bill English 
: Sorry what was that? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please continue. The pauses give opportunities for interventions so would the member please just ask the question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No please be seated. Please be seated—you know that when the Speaker is on her feet members do sit. Members are throwing points of disorder across the Chamber. If it happens again I will ask members to leave the Chamber. Would you please just continue with question time asking the questions and hearing the replies. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister recall a Securities Commission investigation into comments she made about Air New Zealand in 2001 that recommended guidelines be drawn up to guide Ministers on statements about public companies that the Government owned; is she aware of those guidelines and has she complied with them? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes I am aware of the guidelines and they have been complied with. 
Police Conduct Commission of Inquiry—Recommendations 
3.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports has she received that show what progress is being made on achieving the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I have seen the latest New Zealand Police quarterly update which provides a snapshot of the continual work in progress towards full implementation of all the commission of inquiry’s recommendations. Since April 2007 police have continued to make good progress. In the last 3 months three recommendations have been fully completed and another three recommendations have been partially completed. To ensure transparency any New Zealander can follow the progress towards full implementation via the quarterly reports published on the New Zealand Police website. 
Jill Pettis 
: Given the importance Dame Margaret Bazley placed on changes to the police regulations and the introduction of a police code of conduct can the Minister provide information on when these will be introduced? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes these key recommendations in the commission of inquiry report—the changes to the regulations and the draft code of conduct—have now been approved by Cabinet. I am confident that the new regulations will be gazetted later this year. The draft code of conduct will take effect from 1 January 2008 when the new regulations come into force. I think this will be important progress towards confidence in the New Zealand Police. 
Chester Borrows 
: Does she agree with the view of at least one officer who said: “Why can management teach ethics to officers but it doesn’t apply to seniors… when you see what’s going on in the top end” in reference to the fact that human resources general manager Wayne Annan has been caught out sanitising police recruit data by omitting the test results of poorly performing recruits proving that there is still a problem with conduct at the top end? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I would suggest to that member that he waits until the report into police standards is completed; that accusation has been refuted by Mr Annan. In terms of integrity at the top echelons of the police I believe that there is integrity and ethics. If we look at where some of the problems have been we see that they have not been just in the top echelon; they have been with older members of the police and they were issues that were raised going right back into the 1970s and 1980s. The commission of inquiry is addressing those issues and I have confidence that they will be addressed. The New Zealand Police will have the respect that they deserve for the work they do on behalf of New Zealanders. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister tell the House when we can expect to see the report regarding the human resources general manager Wayne Annan given that the allegations against him are extremely serious; and has Mr Annan or indeed the police commissioner been fulsome and wholesome with her in terms of revealing Mr Annan’s complete history thus far? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The report will be provided to the police by the end of September—so there are only another couple of weeks to go. In terms of Mr Annan I tell the member that I have not had contact with him about what he wrote. That is being looked at by the review panel and in the report we will receive. I will leave it up to the independent report to provide me with that so that New Zealanders have the assurance they need about recruitment standards being what they should be. 
Jill Pettis 
: Can the Minister provide any other information on initiatives under way to prevent or investigate police misconduct in the future? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. Any instance of serious misconduct is now reported quickly and personally to the police commissioner. This ensures that any investigative decisions such as for example a conflict of interest are properly made and nationally consistent. Personnel systems have also been enhanced to enable supervisors to identify and deal with patterns of problem behaviour and to provide an early warning system. The best safeguard against misconduct however is a police culture that rejects it. I think that part of that is a code of conduct for New Zealand police which has not been in place in this country ever. It will be a first and long overdue. 
Simon Power 
: What progress has been made in dealing with Mr Rickards’ current employment status with the police? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As the member knows that is not an issue that the Minister of Police deals with but I am informed that it is progressing through the channels it must go through under the old system that exists now and hopefully a resolution of that issue will be in the near future. One of the reasons there is a change to the regulations which I have announced today is to ensure that the slow progress we see in dealing with some of these disciplinary cases does not occur in the future and that they can be dealt with in a much more speedy fashion. 
Electoral Finance Bill—Regulated Period 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: When under the Electoral Finance Bill does the regulated period commence in a year in which Parliament is due to expire? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 1 January. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Government believe that it is necessary to change the period in which election advertising and opinion will be regulated from the current 3-month period which has been in place for decades to a period that could be up to 11 months—that is most of an election year? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Because whilst the Government was looking at a range of matters including the rorting of the electoral system by the National Party and its secretive financial supporters it looked at the experience of similar jurisdictions such as the Canadian and that of the United Kingdom and settled on that period which is longer than the Canadian but briefer than the United Kingdom’s and it seemed an appropriate and reasonable period on balance. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What type of behaviour is the bill intended to address? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: That is a good question. It intends to protect our electoral system from the sort of behaviour we saw in the 2005 election campaign—from secretive wealthy interest groups seeking as they did to subvert and spend up large particularly in the final weeks of the campaign period on behalf of the National Party as this letter to Mr Key quite clearly makes clear. The Exclusive Brethren sought to “launch a $1 million very extensive election campaign with the sole goal of getting party votes for National”. But they did it whilst trying to subvert our electoral system. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain more fully his reasons for picking 1 January as the beginning of the regulated period when the United Kingdom is the only developed country that picks a long regulated period; and why did he not choose Canada which he has mentioned whose regulated period is actually 6 weeks not 11 months? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The problem with the member’s approach is that he is taking isolated pieces of information. For instance the member neglects to mention in his question that Canada also enables less than 1 percent only of relative spending—relative to party for third-party expenditure—during that regulated period. The UK on the other hand allows 5 percent although it also has the burden of retrospectivity for those who might engage in election campaigning. So it is 365 days regardless of when that campaign is called not just in the election year in the fifth year as it would be in the UK. In New Zealand we have settled on the period from 1 January and on 2.5 percent of the amounts allowed per party. That is about a reasonable mid-point between those two comparable jurisdictions. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What contributory factors were evident that required the Government to bring the Electoral Finance Bill into the House? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: There are almost too many to mention but not the least of them followed on from the letter I showed the House in my previous answer. It is the sort of material that was produced as part of that million-dollar campaign which clearly sought and intended to bring about a particular election result while getting around our electoral law. I do not think New Zealanders want a bar of that sort of behaviour in the future from the National Party and its mates. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Minister concerned that his Government’s failure to support restrictions in the Electoral Finance Bill on anonymous donations and on donations from secret trusts may well see the food industry pouring donations into the National Party now that the National Party has announced it will oppose any regulatory measures to reduce obesity in New Zealand children? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: There is no doubt that one of the good arguments for a longer regulated period is that regardless of how many of the National Party’s cronies it has pouring money into its coffers the money will be regulated and the financial limits will apply in order that the election campaign is fought on a contest of ideas not bank balances. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that groups such as anti-obesity campaigners will next year face at least a 10½-month period in which what they can say how they say it and what they spend on it is heavily regulated while he and the incumbent Government will be subject to virtually no restrictions at all in public spending on political messages? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No I cannot confirm that any more than I can the sort of misleading implications that the member tried to circulate in his taxpayer-funded letter as he put disquiet around the countryside. Those organisations that seek to be direct participants in the election process in order to bring about the result of either the election or non-election of a particular party or candidate will be constrained by the same sorts of conditions that the member and I have debated at length in this House. Those organisations going about their education and public information activities will not be so constrained. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that it is Labour’s policy that a person who is confirmed on nomination day 5 or 6 weeks before the election as a constituency candidate will be deemed to have been a candidate for the previous 9 months of the regulated period and that the Government will then retrospectively apply these rules to all the political activities of that person right through the election year even though for most of that year he or she may not have known he or she would be a candidate? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Much of what the member describes is in the current legislation. Secondly it would depend on which year in the 3-year cycle that the election actually took place. 
Hon Bill English 
: Well in which year in the election cycle does one hold elections if it is not an election year? Does the Minister know that we hold elections in election year? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Was that a question? 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that there are two reasons why the Labour Government has chosen 1 January as the start of the regulated period which will then be 10½ months the first reason being that the Labour Party is having trouble raising money and the second reason being that it does not want National to run another billboard campaign? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Firstly I am not responsible for the fund-raising activities of the Labour Party so I cannot speak for that. But as for the billboard campaign I see that the member’s supporters already have billboard campaigns running—I do not know whether those are taxpayer funded like the last lot were. I say to the member that I cannot understand why he is so afraid of a level playing field where the contest of policy and the contest of ideas will have to win out. Perhaps it is because the National Party has neither ideas nor policies. 
Children—Assistance to Family Members 
5.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Who has been consulted on the draft Cabinet paper  
The Role of the State in Providing Assistance for Children who are cared for by Family Members who are not their Parents 
? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Policy work is under way on the provision of support for family caregivers and will examine issues around care for extended family members. The policy is currently under development and I am in the process of discussing the details of the named Cabinet paper with my ministerial colleagues. I know that the member has a very strong interest in this particular issue and I certainly would be happy to consult her in due course. 
Judy Turner 
: When does the Minister expect to enter into consultation with the people most affected by this Cabinet paper—grandparents and kin caregivers entering old age who must become parents a second time round without the energy money and support that first-time parents and foster parents have—and how serious is he about supporting kin caregivers if this draft Cabinet paper is only at a ministerial consultation stage right now? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member will know there has been a good deal of consultation with stakeholders such as grandparents raising children. As a result of that consultation there have been changes in for example legal aid and respite care and there has been the additional support that goes to low-income families with dependent children through Working for Families. The member will be aware that on 1 April this year people in receipt of the unsupported child’s benefit the orphans benefit and the foster care allowance received an additional $10 a week per child. Unsupported child’s benefit and orphans benefit rates increased by a further $10 a week as a contribution towards costs associated with the care of those children. All of those cases were very much a result of consultation with those very people and we expect to carry on with that consultation. 
Tariana Turia 
: Is there a difference between kin and non-kin care in the rate of childcare payments; if so why? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member has been an Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment she will be aware that yes indeed there is a difference. It is one of the issues that all jurisdictions face. It is the difference between for example a child who has been through the Family Court and as a result of that process has been placed with a caregiver who is essentially acting in loco parentis for the State and to whom the State pays a particular rate as opposed to the large number of people with other arrangements because they are looking after some other family member. There undoubtedly are people in this House who are looking after a niece or the son of somebody else in the family. All jurisdictions struggle with getting that money exactly right. So yes there is a different rate between the two. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister accept that increasing the unsupported child’s benefit does not equate to giving the more substantial foster care allowance to kinship caregivers; and that topping up the payments to those caregivers so that they can get for instance counselling for their children would be a lot cheaper than waiting until those children grow up and become the clients of another Government department? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the member has a good point. It is one of the reasons I read out the long list of things that have already changed in this particular area of policy. But I will just go back to the point I made before to Mrs Turia which is that this is a highly complex area for all jurisdictions—that is how much money should go to the large number of people who are cared for by kin. In many cases the kin ask for nothing; they just carry on because they can afford to do so looking after those children and taking them into their families. It is a complex issue and this paper is yet another step to try to come to grips with it. As I said we will certainly carry on consulting those people who are most directly concerned. 
Tariana Turia 
: What explanation does the Minister have for the fact that the majority of children placed by Child Youth and Family are placed with strangers as verified by the 2006 figures showing 3893 placements with family and whanau compared with 9803 placements with other foster care despite the fact that all evidence reports that kin care enhances permanency and stability for the young person—a key outcome area for Child Youth and Family? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member has been an Associate Minister in this area she will know that we all share and the Act in fact privileges the notion that people should stay with their kin. That is the ideal placement for a child. It is a fact of life that one of the problems that remains is to make sure we do have kin who want to take these children. The member will know that from her time in the portfolio. But that is certainly what the Act asks for and that is what Child Youth and Family seeks to do—to have a child placed as close as possible to kin or with kin. That is the preferred placement for a child and we will carry on trying to do that. 
Judy Turner 
: What advice would the Minister recommend I give to the Christchurch grandparents who contacted me this week asking where they could get a loan that they need to provide basic care for their granddaughter after Government agencies could not or would not help them because they are family not foster caregivers? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member will know there are two points of contact. Most Work and Income offices—certainly the bigger offices in places like Christchurch—have a staff member designated to deal with kin looking after kin and I would recommend the member’s constituents go and sit down with that person in particular. Most of the bigger Child Youth and Family offices and certainly the one in Christchurch have a designated person for kin caring for kin. Her constituents should go and talk to that person. I am not saying that will necessarily provide an easy answer but both of those offices have designated staff who are there to deal with those specific issues. Those offices know that at times people face hardship and they try to provide help where they can. 
Promoting Early Childhood Education Participation Project—Serious Fraud Office 
6.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Have any Promoting Early Childhood Education Participation Project providers been investigated by the Serious Fraud Office; if so how many? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am advised that one provider has been investigated or is currently being investigated in fact by the Serious Fraud Office although because the member draws attention to Promoting Early Childhood Education Participation Project I point out that it is not clear whether this investigation has anything to do with that particular project. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can he confirm that a Promoting Early Childhood Education Participation Project contractor the Pan-Chinese Association which had a contract with the ministry of $75000 to increase early childhood education participation rates for Waikato’s poorest and most vulnerable preschoolers—as confirmed by documents from his ministry—is now being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office; and can he tell the House why that is the case when the Serious Fraud Office tends to look at projects valued at $500000 or more? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The last point of the member’s question I think is absolutely right and it was one of the reasons why I mentioned before that we are not sure whether the organisation is being investigated for this particular contract because normally the Serious Fraud Office goes out for over $500000. But I can confirm that the Waikato Pan-Chinese Association is the subject of an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office which does not disclose why it is investigating which is why we do not know. But I will give the House a quick history if I may. The original contract period was from 1 January 2006 to 30 January 2007. The contract was $75000 for 50 children. The contract was ceased by a letter on 8 December 2006 because of a variety of poor performance in the contract. Of the $75000 of the contract $25000 was paid to the contractor. The last payment was made on 14 July 2006. I am advised that the Serious Fraud Office became involved on 5 December 2006 after a complaint was received from the public. I am advised by the Ministry of Education that the ministry was informed by the Serious Fraud Office on 30 January 2007 that the office was investigating. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What programmes does the Government have in place to increase participation in early childhood education? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Don’t you know? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: A large number and I am sure the member is asking the question so that Mr Williamson can share in the good news because there is a great deal of good news. There is a wide range of initiatives to boost participation in the rapidly expanding early childhood area such as the Promoting Early Childhood Education Participation Project to boost participation in areas of low take-up discretionary grants schemes establishment grants and 20 hours’ free early childhood education to lower costs and boost access for parents and their 3 to 4-year-olds. All of this exciting material is part of a 10-year strategic programme to boost participation and deliver high-quality early childhood education to children throughout the nation. 
Katherine Rich 
: Is it correct that Te Roopu Awhina Ki Porirua which received over half a million dollars from the ministry to increase the participation rate of preschoolers in Porirua had its contract terminated in January because of “poor performance inaccurate reporting and organisational mismanagement” and has since “apparently sabotaged the contract and removed some of the files”; if so what steps did the Minister take? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am aware of the background of that case but not of the particular part the member has mentioned at the end of her question and I will investigate. 
Katherine Rich 
: What steps would he take if it turned out that two other contractors Taha Fasi Ltd which received $241000 last year and Potahi Enterprises Ltd which received $115000 last year from the ministry have had ongoing concerns with contract performance the meeting of targets and requirements of contracts and that these contract-management issues along with those of a number of other providers have been known to the ministry since January 2006? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I would expect that the ministry does what it normally does and did in the case I have read out in relation to the Waikato Pan-Chinese Association—it regularly monitors these organisations. When they throw up difficulties in performance it works with them to improve it. Where it is not possible to improve it the ministry takes the action it took in the case of the Waikato Pan-Chinese Association. 
Katherine Rich 
: So does he personally know about the contractors I have just mentioned—have his ministry officials told him and if they have not why have they not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There are of course literally thousands of these contracts and they are matters for the department to monitor in the normal operational way. Department officials would bring these things to my attention only if they felt there was some anomaly or that it was necessary to surface it in a way that was unusual. That is why they would bring them to my attention. They report to me weekly on all issues and if they feel there is something that they need to bring to my attention they will do exactly that. 
Katherine Rich 
: How come I have been informed about it through documents received under the Official Information Act through his office but he is not aware of it and does it concern him that the evaluation of the Promoting Participation in Early Childhood Education Project found that there were serious gaps and inconsistencies in the type of data collected that there was a 42 percent rate only of achievement of targets and only two instances where targets were actually achieved by contractors; and given this apparent lack of data collection how does he know that the millions of dollars being spent in this area are actually working? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member is being a little bit disingenuous. The reason she knows this is that there was an evaluation. Evaluations take place in all policies including this so we can find out what goes right and what goes wrong. In this particular case the project is showing that it is doing in most of the cases we are interested in a better job than if we were not doing this programme. There are areas to tighten up on. That is why we evaluate and that is how we improve. 
Katherine Rich 
: Will the Minister go back to his office and seek a report from his ministry officials who have managed to tell the Opposition about a number of contracts that have gone bad yet have failed to tell their Minister? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That really is a silly question. The reason the member knows this is that she is being informed by the department as she appropriately can be and we will be informed in the same way. 
Paid Parental Leave—Reports 
7.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What reports has she received regarding paid parental leave? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I have received a report from the Families Commission that sets out its recommendations for extensions to the paid parental leave scheme that the Labour-led Government introduced in 2002. Our Government has progressively improved the scheme by extending its leave provisions from 12 to 14 weeks reducing the length of time that a parent has to be in paid work before he or she is eligible extending eligibility to the self-employed and raising the rate of payment every year. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has the Minister received any other reports on the paid parental leave scheme? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As a matter of fact I have. The first is a quote that states: “…I would have much rather had a tax cut than paid parental leave.” and another states: “As a working woman myself I could seriously have done with paid parental leave when I had a little child.” Those conflicting statements are both from Judith Collins. I have seen another report that states in relation to the paid parental leave scheme that the State should butt out and another from the same person who welcomed the Families Commission report I mentioned in my answer to the primary question. Both those conflicting reports are from Kate Wilkinson. A third report states that the paid parental leave scheme was driven by 1970s feminist union ideology rather than by the real needs of women in the 21st century. Anne Tolley who made that comment also supported future extensions to this scheme. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Did I just hear Mr Ryall laughing at the fact that members on this side of the House took seriously something that Kate Wilkinson said? I am sure he did not mean to do that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister have any intention to amend the paid parental leave legislation to make it obligatory for an employee to return to work with the same employer after a period of paid parental leave or does she believe that such a practice is operating under good faith? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: If that became a problem then of course it would be worthy of consideration. But evaluation shows that both employees and employers are very satisfied with the scheme. There are four areas worthy of future consideration: the fact that 10 percent of women in the paid workforce who are new mothers are still not eligible; the length of time that women are eligible for payment; the amount; and of course the fact that we still have a very low take-up from new fathers. Those are areas for future consideration. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Will the Government be acting on the recommendations of the Families Commission and on those of the Inquiry into Obesity and Type II Diabetes in New Zealand which were supported by all parties on the Health Committee except the National Party that paid parental leave be extended to 6 months to support exclusive breastfeeding; if so by what date will the Government be extending paid parental leave to 6 months? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: We certainly will be giving consideration in future to extensions to the scheme which is consistent with the way we have operated since its introduction. In respect of the select committee’s report my understanding is that the Government response to that is due later in the year. 
Sue Moroney 
: Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s intention to maintain the paid parental leave scheme and what reports has she received on future extensions of the scheme? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I am delighted to be able to confirm that the Labour-led Government is committed to paid parental leave unlike the National Party whose spokesperson on women’s affairs Jackie Blue last month rejected the extension of the scheme and the report of the Health Committee mentioned by Sue Kedgley. National was the only party on the select committee to oppose that recommendation. I call on National’s leader John Key who said definitively: “Yeah I think we support paid parental leave.” to clarify the conflicting statements of his hollow women on the question of whether National is committed to the scheme. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a transcript of a radio interview that states that the Green Party wanted to ban tea and coffee in workplaces— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Housing New Zealand Corporation—Confidence 
8.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Does he have confidence in Housing New Zealand Corporation; if so why? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Yes; but there is always room for improvement. 
Phil Heatley 
: What were the conclusions of the corporation’s internal investigation report that was due in late July regarding allegations of corruption with insider help for the State house tenant who sublet his State house while owning a beach house in the Bay of Islands and will he release that report? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I will release that report. But as is usual with that member of course we get only half the truth. No such date as the end of July was given. I said we would work through an investigation process and that we would release the report. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Coming from one of the exponents of half-truths it was quite inappropriate and outside the Standing Orders for the Minister to use that term in his answer. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: To say that a person is speaking half the truth does not mean to say that he or she is telling a lie at all; it means that he or she is leaving certain things out. Now I am sure that the member on occasion leaves certain things out—or perhaps he does not. But he ought on occasion to leave certain things out. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would ask Ministers when they are replying to address the question and to refrain from making comments that are not relevant to the question that was asked. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked what the conclusions were of the corporation’s internal investigation report and I did not actually get an answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Does the Minister wish to continue with his answer? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I will repeat what I said in my first answer: I expect to release the report shortly. 
Ann Hartley 
: What progress is Housing New Zealand Corporation making in meeting the housing needs of New Zealanders? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: It is making very good progress indeed. For example just in the final quarter of the 2006-07 financial year 246 new State houses had been acquired 252 Welcome Home Loans were settled the waiting list for State houses declined by 400 people and tenant debt decreased by more than $750000. The list of good news goes on and on. Ensuring Kiwi families have access to quality affordable housing continues to be a key commitment of the Labour-led Government. 
Phil Heatley 
: Has the corporation’s internal investigation into allegations of corruption been concluded and is the report with the Minister and ready for release or has the investigation not been concluded? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The investigation that we have had has been about the length of time it has been taking to investigate allegations. This report will be released shortly. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The reported investigation is into internal corruption—insider help within Housing New Zealand Corporation—and the Minister demanded the report in a month’s time back in June. So the report was due in July and I am asking whether that report has been finished—whether it was finished at the end of July whether it is finished now and whether it is with the Minister. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Allegations of corruption that were made by a Mr Mani earlier in the year have been investigated. We have released that report; it was found to be not correct. The investigation that the board of Housing New Zealand Corporation is doing at the moment—which I conceded was into a real issue—is into the length of time that investigations into allegations of subletting and so on had been taking. That report has been completed. It has been reviewed by the Department of Building and Housing and we will release the report shortly. It seems the member is confusing two different investigations. 
Phil Heatley 
: Has the corporation taken the tenant who sublet his State house while owning a beach house in the Bay of Islands and who owes the taxpayer $32650 before the tribunal or court; if so what was the outcome? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: That particular investigation has been completed. It is contained within a wider report on the length of time the investigations unit of Housing New Zealand Corporation has taking for investigations. The report will be released shortly. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I clearly asked whether that tenant had been taken before the court or tribunal and what the outcome was. I knew the investigation had been completed; I canvassed that issue several months ago. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Can the Minister assist the member. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: That particular case has been part of a wider investigation into process. That report will be released shortly. As to the particular status of the case raised by Mr Heatley that case has been referred on for prosecution. At what point that referral is at the moment I cannot tell the House. If the member cares to put that to me in writing he will get a reply. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why does the Minister know nothing about the court case and nothing about the corruption investigation when he himself called the corporation “sluggish” wanted an “urgent review of the corporation’s processes” and demanded the board report back on the corruption allegations by July—or is he all hot air in this House but does not take that rort seriously? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: What an astonishing question! We have investigated the issues the member has raised. He is sort of muddling several cases. The bottom line is that we have had a thorough investigation of the investigations unit the report has been sent to the Department of Building and Housing as the monitoring agency to check and the report itself will be released shortly. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table documents that show that the investigation report sat on Housing New Zealand Corporation’s desk for 10 months. 
Document not tabled. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table documents that show that the report was not forwarded to the Solicitor-General but has been now. 
Document not tabled. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to show that the report has been sitting with the Solicitor-General for 3 months now. 
Document not tabled. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table a document that shows the Minister’s call for a corruption investigation— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Taxation—Income Tax Abatement Threshold 
9.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: When was the income abatement threshold outlined in Income Test 3 of section 3 of the Social Security Act 1964 set at its current level of $80 a week? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister of Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 1 July 1996. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is he aware that inflation has increased by 24.9 percent since 1996 meaning that non-qualified spouses receiving superannuation will have seen their base superannuation rate rise through an annual adjustment and would need to have the rebate kick in at around $100 if they were to achieve parity with their superannuation payment from that period? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am aware of that and I advise the member that one of the things that is taking place at the present time is a look at the abatement thresholds right across a whole range of payments as part of the Working New Zealand package that we are looking at. As a result of that we will take a look at this issue. I will not prejudice what we will do at the end of it but the member can be guaranteed that it will be looked at during that review. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister aware that the non-qualified spouse rate of 77c in the dollar after $80 earned is at odds with the rebate rate of the widows benefit and other benefits set at 30c in the dollar and is he aware of the fact that the $80 amount has not changed for more than a decade; if so what incentive is there for those on a non-qualified spouse rate of superannuation to earn extra income? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Agree with it or disagree with it the policy-based reason for this is simply that if one is on a widows benefit the assumption is that one has children at home and therefore will be going out to part-time work. If a person is under 65 and is a non-qualifying spouse that person is probably able to go out for full-time work. That is why there is a difference between the abatement regimes. The member may agree or disagree with that but that has been the basis of that decision for a very long time and I assume that it will carry on because of the presence or absence of children. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Would the Minister concede that there is a correlation between the dramatic fall in private income for seniors and the fact that they are penalised by the rebate rate of 70c per dollar imposed after $80 a week of extra earnings; and if he does will he accept New Zealand First’s recommendation to change the rebate to 30c in the dollar and lift the income threshold to $100; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member will know because New Zealand First and the Government have an agreement around these issues we have been seeking to increase and protect the income of superannuitants. The issue she raises is one I have probably addressed in my answer to that earlier question—that if through Working New Zealand we do have a look at abatement regimes this will be captured by that review. I will not guarantee that the outcome will be exactly as the member would like because all of these things of course have to be judged in terms of how much money there is and whether it is a productive way of going about spending that money. But I can guarantee that it will be reviewed. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Minister confirm that unlike other couple beneficiaries superannuitants do not have their entire income entitlement abated away because the qualifying partner can opt for half the married rate and that does not then affect any earnings the other partner can have? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That is exactly right. It does give a choice to people who are in the situation of one person being over 65 and the non-qualifying spouse being under 65. There obviously are people who want to make that choice as Dr Cullen has outlined because they do not want to or cannot see themselves as being able to secure work. They can take that choice without any impact on their income. 
Employment Relations Act—Section 87 
10.  
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Is she satisfied with the operation of section 87 of the Employment Relations Act 2000; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes I am; and I assume that Parliament for the last 30 years has also been satisfied because that section is relatively unchanged. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Does the Minister agree with the Employment Relations Authority that postal workers can go out on their runs to deliver their mail and secretly strike by deliberately dumping their mail—so that it has to be re-sorted and redelivered on another day—yet still be entitled to a full day’s wages; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I would have assumed given the member’s previous occupation that she would understand that it is totally inconsistent with constitutional conventions for a Minister to make comment on a matter that may well come before the Employment Court. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Does the Minister think that it is fair that workers secretly striking by sabotaging a business cannot be suspended but that striking workers who give notice can? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The point of section 87 is to ensure that when workers are on strike the employer suspends them and does not have any liability to pay them. If the member is proposing that employers will be required to pay striking workers in future then that would be a very interesting development that I think Business New Zealand would be delighted to respond to. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: When according to the authority the current legislation means that employers are “vulnerable to a sudden strike amounting to surprise or guerrilla tactics” does she think that only vulnerable workers not vulnerable employers deserve the protection of fair and equitable employment law? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I made very clear in the answer to the primary question I support the intention of section 87 of the Employment Relations Act. It has remained essentially unchanged over three decades before a variety of Governments in this Parliament and that is because our Parliament has consistently said that when workers are on strike the employer must be able to suspend them and not have the liability to pay them. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that in a tight labour market such as we have now it is reasonably straightforward for a striking employee or a suspended striking employee to take on temporary work with another employer; if she does recognise that can she advise whether she regards such a practice as operating in good faith; and if it is not what can be done about it? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It has always been the case that people who are on strike are in that way available for work. I would not consider that this section of the legislation appropriately covers that situation. 
Emissions—Australian Comparisons 
11.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What reports if any has he received on emissions increases in New Zealand and how they compare with Australia’s? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Yesterday it was suggested by a senior member in the House that Australia’s greenhouse gas emission growth is less than Australia’s. He is of course wrong. 
Hon Members 
: Australia’s less than Australia’s? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No I said that he had said that Australia’s greenhouse gas emission growth was less than New Zealand’s. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No you said that Australia’s was less than Australia’s. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No that is what the member suggested. New Zealand’s total emissions growth is lower than Australia’s. New Zealand’s emissions are lower than Australia’s by a factor of seven. On a per capita basis New Zealand’s are substantially lower. Carbon dioxide emissions per capita in Australia are more than double those in New Zealand and Australia’s emissions are growing at twice the rate. Dr Smith’s representation is what we would expect from a member who has described himself as being at the coalface of environmentalism. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister received any reports on approaches to managing New Zealand’s agricultural greenhouse gas emissions that have parallels with the way that Australia is managing its emissions? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Indeed I have. Yesterday it was suggested by a senior member that Australia’s greenhouse gas emission growth was less than that of New Zealand. He was wrong. He suggested that the Australians’ approach was more credible than ours. In fact their carbon dioxide emissions are growing at twice the rate of ours. Their livestock farming emissions have dropped through the floor but only because of a drought linked to climate change. Livestock deaths to reduce emissions! That is the first indication of a climate change policy that we have had from the National Party for some time. I think Dr Smith should stop taking advice from Kazakhstan. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why do the official United Nations figures show that from 1999 when Labour came to office to 2005—the latest figures—New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions grew by 8 million tonnes a year which was an increase of 12 percent when the comparative figure for Australia was an increase of 5.5 percent and when Labour had promised that by 2005 it would reduce emissions by 20 percent; does this not show that when performance is matched with promise Labour has failed miserably on climate change? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Dr Smith has a record of trying to make the statistics say what he wants to hear. On 18 July he told the House there had been a 9.7 percent increase in coal-fired generation; in fact there had been a 4.8 percent drop. He has not apologised. He is wrong yet again. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change statistics on greenhouse gas emissions excluding land-use change show that New Zealand’s grew 21.3 percent in 1990 to 2004 and Australia’s went up 25.1 percent. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the official United Nations figures on greenhouse gas emissions— 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that although both New Zealand’s and Australia’s emissions have risen to around 125 percent of what they were back in 1990 a better comparison is with the UK which has reduced its emissions to just 85 percent of 1990 levels and now produces just 11 tonnes per person while we produce 18 tonnes per person which is the fourth-worst level in the OECD? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I can confirm both of those facts. Of course the two big differences are firstly the United Kingdom retired a lot of dirty old coal-fired power generation and of course we never had much of that— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: We have grown ours! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: We have not grown our coal-fired power— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What about over Labour’s term? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Look here he goes again. I just showed the House that last year our coal emissions went down and Dr Smith is saying they are going up. Not only that; there has not been a coal-fired power station built in New Zealand in decades. In respect of the other difference between us and the United Kingdom of course unlike New Zealand the United Kingdom has lower livestock emissions and that makes a substantial difference in terms of emission reduction opportunities. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the official New Zealand energy statistics which show that the increase in coal-generated power has gone from 4 percent— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister further confirm that our emissions per person are roughly four times those of China and that developing countries are unlikely to make any commitments unless per capita emissions are taken into account; and will New Zealand actively promote targets that recognise population size at the APEC meeting this week or at the Bali negotiations in December? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I can indeed confirm the statistics that the member read out. I absolutely agree that it is clear that developed countries will have to do more than developing countries in terms of reducing their emissions from current levels and that per capita emissions are relevant. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that earlier question from Jeanette Fitzsimons about the UK’s emissions can he confirm that the UK is looking strongly at having more nuclear power stations in order to bring down its carbon emissions and does he believe that the Greens are by implication suggesting that we should head that way? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am aware that the United Kingdom is looking further at nuclear power. I am also aware that the cost estimates of its investigations show that nuclear power is a very expensive alternative. If it were to be applied in a country like New Zealand or indeed Australia it would result in a very very significant increase in power prices. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table documents that show that in the last 3 years New Zealand lost 30000 hectares of forests whereas over the same period Labour planted— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table statistics showing that Dr Smith’s assertion yesterday in respect of Australian emissions— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I seek leave to table my very beautiful graph showing how much better the UK has done than New Zealand and Australia. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Crown Minerals—Confidence 
12.  
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Energy 
: Does he have confidence in Crown Minerals; if not why not? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Yes but we can always hope for even better. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Are there any prerequisites that must be met before an application for a petroleum mining permit is granted and how long does that process normally take from application to the granting of the permit? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Crown Minerals has of course very clear protocols for petroleum exploration and mining. We have obviously depending on the complexity of the particular proposal no fixed time but certainly each proposal is thoroughly considered and worked through with the applicant and then a decision is made yes or no. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Who normally signs the mining permits the Minister or Crown Minerals staff; and if it is the Minister himself does he have to satisfy himself that all prerequisites have been met by the applicant? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: In most cases Crown Minerals has delegated responsibility for the signing. However in all cases I receive a briefing on the proposal and what has been agreed to in terms of the mining permit. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What persuaded him to become personally involved in signing a 40-year permit for Macdonald Investments to mine 170 square kilometres of the Grey Valley for coal gas just 1 month after the application was made with none of the normal prerequisites being met and with no evidence of a discovery? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Macdonald Investments Ltd was actively involved in working its exploration permit throughout the permit period; it had an exploration permit. In particular the company significantly increased its levels of exploration activity from February 2006 and on receipt of an application for a mining permit Crown Minerals evaluated the proposal and was satisfied that the company had a commercial prospect and that its application satisfied the requirements for the due granting of a mining permit. 
Darien Fenton 
: How is Crown Minerals contributing to the economic development of New Zealand? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Crown Minerals continues to increase its contribution to the economic development of New Zealand and the recent technology developments have put it at the forefront of international regulators in streamlining permitting processes and enabling greater access to geotechnical data. The recent Great South Basin blocks offer resulted in five petroleum exploration permits with something like $1.2 billion of exploration work over the next 5 years awarded to domestic and international consortiums. The figures from 2006 for the minerals industry show a value to the national economy of approximately $1.5 billion. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Why did he approve Macdonald Investments’ permits against the advice of Crown Mineral officials and in spite of Macdonald’s failure to comply with earlier permits when the Act states that he may grant a permit only if he is satisfied that the applicant will comply with the conditions? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The member is making quite a serious allegation; he is alleging some sort of impropriety on my part. I invite him to say that outside Parliament. Secondly the company itself made approaches to Crown Minerals asking that its previous problems in developing the permit be taken into account in not extinguishing the exploration permit. As a local member that member should have been aware—that is the first thing. The second is that the company employed a new and very able geologist to look again at its exploration data and decided to take the very unusual step of going directly from exploration to mining—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member asked a question. It is a serious matter. All members in the House would like to hear the answer. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The company took the very unusual step of going from an exploration permit directly into mining. It put forward a proposal to Crown Minerals saying it believed it had a good discovery at that point but not where it had previously believed it to be. The arguments put forward by the company are that it should not be made to drill where it had originally proposed but should be allowed to try to mine directly from the new site that its new geologist had proposed. If the member considers it to be some sort of impropriety to allow a company that had put a lot of investment into an area to continue with that investment then I invite him to consider what his role in this House is. If the member proposed the question not just in the general manner that he did but directly about the company I would be more than happy to come with more information and I would be more than happy to table it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You just reminded the House that this is a very serious matter. You further said that the House wanted to hear the answer. Both of those things are very true. The House did not hear an answer to the very direct question that was asked of Mr Duynhoven. The question was why he personally approved this extraordinarily large permit against the advice of his department. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the Minister more than addressed the question. [ 
Interruption 
] I listened very carefully to the answer that was given at length even though it was constantly interrupted. I consider that the Minister did address the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like to indicate to the House that should the Minister seek leave to give further information in this matter National would certainly not oppose that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows that is not a point of order. We have come to the end of the time for questions but we will come to members’ questions. 
Questions to Members 
Regulatory Responsibility Bill—Committee Consideration 
1.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Commerce Committee 
: What is the committee’s timetable for consideration of the Regulatory Responsibility Bill? 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Chairperson of the Commerce Committee) 
: 
 This is a bill that has received a very large number of submissions— 
Hon Members 
: Answer the question. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I seek leave to answer this question in total silence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. Would the member please continue. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It does not surprise me that the Government members over there want to make light of this question. It is an extremely important question and I know that the House wants to hear the answer. I know that an extraordinarily large number of New Zealanders have put in submissions on this bill and want to be heard by the select committee. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Despite the banter from the other side of the House it was quite clear to members over here who are eagerly awaiting the member’s response that despite the very specific nature of the question he did not even address it let alone answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members should do Mr Brownlee the courtesy of allowing him to complete his answer. I will now rule. We will have the answer in silence. Would the member please address the question. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am a learner at this and have been taking advice from Mark Burton as to how to answer a question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is out of order. Just answer the question. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The committee will allocate plenty of time to consider this particular bill. The member asked what the timeline is. There are 190 submissions. A large number of those submitters have asked to be heard. Therefore we will begin hearing those submissions tomorrow immediately after we hear from the Ministry of Economic Development about its views on this particular bill. I say to the member that we had hoped that Treasury might also be able to give us its opinions on this bill but unfortunately Treasury is too busy to deal with members’ bills; it is caught up entirely with Government bills at this stage. 
Rodney Hide 
: I wonder whether the member could share with the House who will be giving submissions to the committee tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Tomorrow morning the committee will hear firstly from officials from the ministry. Clearly the Government is very interested in doing more with this bill as indicated by the Minister in the House today. Tomorrow morning we will hear from the Law Commission. The Rt Hon Geoffrey Palmer will be giving a submission on this bill although I understand that he will not be giving a submission on another bill on which he has been asked to submit. Further we have a submission from the New Zealand Chambers of Commerce from Mr Charles Finney. The member will be familiar with that gentleman I am sure. The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions has not said who is coming but one of its representatives is coming. Business New Zealand will also be heard. Further the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand will be heard. All of these submissions are very substantial and they give a lead as to where the bill should go. The member should be extremely proud that he is now doing the Government’s business—the business that the Prime Minister said she wanted to get done as far back as 2001.