Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeQuestions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12205. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Questions to MinistersIraq—War1.DIANNE YATES (Labour) to theMinister of Defence: Has he received any reports on the war in Iraq?Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): Yes. There are daily reports in the media on the war in Iraq but oddly no reference to it in the recently released National Party policy on foreign affairs and defence. However—[Interruption]Madam SPEAKER: Please continue.Hon PHIL GOFF: —I have seen a report where John Key explains that with the statement “the war in Iraq is over.” That will be an absolute revelation to the families of the 768 coalition force members who have been tragically killed in Iraq since Februaryof this year and of the around 3000 Iraqi civilians equally tragically killed in the last few months alone.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sitting beside Mr Goff and people in this House know he has an incredibly loud voice. I could not hear all the answer because the National Party members were barracking across the House trying to drown out his answer. I ask you to allow him to answer the question so that we can hear it.Madam SPEAKER: The member is correct. The level of intervention and barracking was to the stage where in fact it was impossible to hear the answer from the Minister. We will now have a supplementary question and if the barracking continues members will be leaving the Chamber.Dianne Yates: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I could not hear the answer as well and that affects my next question.Madam SPEAKER: If the member does not wish to ask the question she need not do so but I invite her to ask her supplementary question.Dianne Yates: Does the—[Interruption]Madam SPEAKER: Order—or members will be leaving the Chamber.Dianne Yates: —Minister have any evidence given that the Leader of the Opposition has denied what he has said in the past to support his answer to my previous question?Hon PHIL GOFF: The evidence I have for the quotation from Mr Key is clear and is readily documented. I am happy to table that in the House. Equally I am happy to table Mr Key’s denial—his claim that the answer he gave was in relation to a question about the invasion of Iraq. I will table that as well because clearly that statement is misleading. I can understand that Mr Key forgot that he had voted for a resolution in this House a few years that supported the presence of New Zealand troops in the invasion. What I cannot understand—and it reflects on his credibility—is that he has forgotten what he was asked one day earlier and forgotten what he said in reply to it.Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister of Defence aware that in making his comments the Leader of the Opposition was relying on statements made by the previous Minister of Defence the Hon Mark Burton who in August 2003 talked about “humanitarian and reconstruction aid to post-war Iraq” comments by the then Minister of Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade the Hon Phil Goff who in the same year expressed “great relief and satisfaction that the conflict” in Iraq “was short” and the fact that the same Hon Phil Goff the previous foreign affairs Minister also talked about providing “a sound basis for the engagement of the international community in the post-war reconstruction of Iraq”; and is the Minister of Defence now saying that the previous Minister of Defence and the previous foreign affairs Minister were wrong when they made those comments—or perhaps he does not understand that postwar means after the war is over?Hon PHIL GOFF: I do not resile from any comments I made at that time. [Interruption]Madam SPEAKER: Mr Brownlee’s question was heard in relative silence. I ask that members do the same courtesy to the Minister in his response.Hon PHIL GOFF: The only thing wrong with Mr Brownlee’s comment was that he got the month wrong. I said immediately after the invasion had taken place that I was relieved that the period of conflict involved with the invasion had been short which indeed it had been. The sending of New Zealand Defence Force engineers to Iraq was done at a time when it was sensible to do that. Unlike the combat forces that Gerry Brownlee and John Key wanted sent for the invasion the engineers were sent there under a United Nations resolution to do humanitarian and reconstruction work. What was absolutely wrong was the gaffe made by John Key last week when he said that theconflict in Iraq was over when clearly with thousands of people continuing to die that statement was wrong. Not only was it wrong but also instead of owning up to the gaffe he continued to mislead the country and electorate by saying he had not made the statement. That is becoming a pattern and it reflects on the integrity and credibility of Mr Key.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The circumstances of Iraq surely do not justify the kind of guffawing glee laughter and noise that is emanating from the National Party benches. National members have no right to be allowed to persist in behaving in this House in that way. No other party supports that attitude. I ask you to bring them to order.Madam SPEAKER: Yes the member is correct.Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. While the member was making that point of order there was a clear interjection from Bill English.Madam SPEAKER: I am afraid that I have asked members to desist and to respect the Standing Orders. There is obviously a determination not to do so. This is a House in which there should be freedom of speech and that means freedom to be heard as well. Of course interventions are allowed but members have no respect for that fundamental right of members in this House. That simply cannot continue. Members cannot hear. So I will systematically ask members to leave the Chamber from now on regardless if in fact members cannot be heard. Otherwise we will have to have question time in silence.Keith Locke: To clear matters up does the defence budget stretch to funding John Key on an educational trip around Iraq so that he can see what is going on inFallujah and in the suburbs of Baghdad meet the people and experience peace firsthand?Hon PHIL GOFF: The defence budget indeed might stretch to that but I understand from rumours within the National Party that it will not be necessary to spend that money because if John Key keeps making the gaffes that he is I hear that Bill English is arranging a whip-round for the National members to give John Key a one-way ticket there themselves.Dianne Yates: Does the Government welcome the new apparently bipartisan support for the Labour-led Government’s policies on Iraq and other defence and foreign policies reflected in National’s policy release last week?Hon PHIL GOFF: Of course if it could be relied upon. But I have two problems with it. The first problem is that it utterly contradicts everything the National Party has been saying publicly and sometimes privately over the last 7 years and secondly we have seen so many flip-flops one way and the other on foreign and defence policy by the National Party that it simply cannot be relied upon. I think policy should be founded on conviction and principle and not on the political expediency felt by the National Party to avoid losing votes on this issue over the next few months. For that reason although I would welcome a genuinely bipartisan approach I do not see any genuineness conviction or principle in what the media called a lame and tame foreign and defence policy. It is really “me too” without the conviction.Gerry Brownlee: When the Minister expressed relief and satisfaction that the conflict was short and talked about the postwar reconstruction of Iraq 4 years ago what was he implying if it was not that the war was over—and just by the way would it be OK for Mr Key to use his airpoints to go to Iraq now that Air New Zealand flies there in order that he can see firsthand what is going on in Basra?Madam SPEAKER: I doubt whether there is ministerial responsibility for the latter part of that question.Hon PHIL GOFF: I do not think there was anybody in this House shortly after the invasion of Iraq who was not relieved that the conflict involved in the invasion was relatively brief. I do not think there was any opposition in this House to the fact that theNew Zealand Labour-led Government decided to provide humanitarian and reconstruction assistance. What has made John Key a laughing stock is his claim 4 years after the invasion that the war was over when conflict is still taking thousands of lives in that unfortunate country.Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the issue of the “me too” foreign policy and having regard to discussions the Minister and I have had is it true to say as Mr Key said—no doubt advised by Mr McCully—that only one-third of our aid goes to the Pacific or is it 51 percent; which of those two figures is correct?Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that Mr Goff is a former foreign Minister and would probably be able to answer that question quite competently but it is slightly alarming that the current foreign Minister has to ask the defence Minister a question about foreign aid. I wonder how that fits in with his ministerial responsibility.Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. There is no responsibility for foreign aid in his current portfolio.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the foreign affairs budget circa 2007 which demonstrates clearly that 51 percent of our foreign aid and overseas development assistance goes to the Pacific not 33 percent as Mr Key was told by Mr McCully to say.Document not tabled.Economy—Government Surpluses2.JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that “If you look at some of the things we have done this term it has taken a while to build up the kitty for a substantial tax package. It has taken a while to build up the kitty for Working for Families. It has taken time to work up the kitty for interest-free loans and the early childhood programme. So undoubtedly there will be areas we will build on for next time which will be new.”; if so why?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes; because unlike the Leader of the Opposition I am not reckless with public money.John Key: Would it be useful for the Prime Minister if I deciphered her statement for New Zealanders and it would go something like this—Labour is going to run very large surpluses like the $8.7 billion surplus it announced today so that it can build up the kitty to try to buy its votes next year in election year.?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I know that the National Party is just so jealous that a Labour Government has run a strong economy with strong fiscal surpluses and therefore has many choices available to it in drawing up a Budget.John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that the last four surpluses now total $34 billion and would she like to explain to New Zealanders why they are struggling to pay increased interest rates under a Labour Government why they are paying increased rates under a Labour Government why they are paying increased food and electricity prices under a Labour Government and most of all whywhile they are struggling it is good enough for her Government to hoard more tax revenue than is required?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member really should not confuse operating surpluses and cash surpluses. Secondly it is quite clear that the National Party’s 2005 tax-cut policy was so inflationary that mortgage rates would have been considerably higher had New Zealanders ever had the misfortune to have it inflicted upon them.John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday Michael Cullen told the House that there were four tests that had to be met in terms of tax cuts being affordable; in fact one of those tests was met in 2004 in which case why was there not a tax cut that year or is that because 2004 was not an election year?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I would have thought even the member knew the difference between meeting one test and meeting four.John Key: Can I then repeat the question for the Prime Minister; in 2004 the four tests were met and a tax cut was not delivered and in fact the only time a tax cut for New Zealanders was delivered under her Government was 2005—it was promised but never delivered because Michael Cullen took it off them the next year?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member really should go back to previous Budgets. In previous Budgets the Government implemented substantial tax cuts for families in two consecutive Budgets. It has implemented tax credits for KiwiSaver for both employees and employers and of course the substantial business tax package to improve growth prospects.Hon Jim Anderton: Has the Prime Minister received any reports on any previous Government’s term of office over 4 years that brought a surplus of $30 billion tax cuts of between $2 billion and $3 billion the lowest level of unemployment in two to three decades and a reduction in poverty for the most vulnerable New Zealanders all at the same time?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: One would indeed have to go back a long way to find a Government with as strong a record as this Labour-led one which explains why we have had this outbreak of fiscal envy from the other side of the House.John Key: Can the Prime Minister explain to New Zealanders why it is better that she hoards more of their cash than she actually needs to run the Government’s books and they have to struggle to make ends meet?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Of course the Government has done a lot to relieve pressures on families and on superannuitants. I note that even by the Leader of the Opposition’s own admission his policy on tax cuts would leave middle-income New Zealanders worse off than they are under Labour’s Working for Families policy.State-owned Assets—Value3.R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) to theMinister of Finance: What is the current value of State-owned assets in New Zealand and what was the total value of revenue generated from those assets in the last financial year?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): The current total value of the State-owned enterprise portfolio as measured by shareholder equity is $23.5 billion as at the most recent annual report for each company. The total revenue generated in the most recent financial year was $7.75 billion and dividend payments in that year were over $400 million. Of course the State owns a huge range of other assets worth tens of billions of dollars such as schools roads hospitals etc. but even some of these seem to be under threat from a potential National Government.R Doug Woolerton: What impact would any proposed State-owned asset fire sale have on revenue and how would this affect the ability to cut taxes?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I said the State-owned enterprises portfolio pays dividends of over $400 million a year. Therefore that contributes to the ability of the Government both to fund services and—if necessary or desirable—to reduce revenue. If those State-owned assets were sold off they could give a one-time cash ability but in doing so the revenue stream would be lost for the future.Hon Bill English: What did the Government do with the $1.4 billion proceeds of the sale of hydro assets owned by Meridian Energy?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Those assets in terms of the dividend being paid to the Government which was not $1.4 billion at the time were used to invest in roading and in infrastructure—therefore in assets that appear on the Crown balance sheet.R Doug Woolerton: Would the Minister agree that any ideologically driven moves to flog off State assets to fund tax cuts is remarkably short-sighted given that once the asset is sold the Crown loses future revenue from that asset meaning that in return for a one-off tax cut funded from the sale the Crown loses future revenue to pay ongoing costs of tax cuts?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Indeed from a fiscal perspective it would only be justifiable at all if any revenue was used to pay off debt or to invest in other assets. If it was used to fund tax cuts then one has lost that asset on the books but National has said it believes in raising more debt.Gordon Copeland: When Rob Cameron the New Zealand Exchange the employers and manufacturers and many other financial experts all favour the sale of a minority stake in State-owned enterprises to Kiwi investors why does the Minister cling to 100 percent State ownership as a non-negotiable and is this not just an extreme form of socialist ideology at the expense of maximising New Zealand’s economic potential?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. Indeed some level of common interest of that sort I would have thought was quite consistent with a Christian social and economic philosophy. Certainly that is the position taken by a range of Christian democratic parties in Europe.Hon Bill English: Can the Minister tell us what was the fiscal effect of selling a $1.4 billion State-owned asset and investing the money in roads which make no return on capital?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The fiscal effect on the Crown balance sheet was by and large neutral because the asset of course appeared on the Crown balance sheet. If the member believes that building roads does not contribute to future economic growth I do not understand why he wants to borrow money to build them.R Doug Woolerton: Would the Minister agree that those with enough capital to buy State assets are likely to be deep-pocketed foreign companies and would he also agree that if State assets are sold to them we are likely to see a repeat of the situation in the 1980s and 1990s when privatised assets were sold to the rich and most profits disappeared overseas?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The reality is that whether by way of public float or by way of trade sale there is a high likelihood that much of any sale of State assets would end up in foreign hands. We have also seen in that regard in many instances a lack of commitment to expanding those assets within New Zealand. In some cases therefore the Government has had to step in and buy back those assets or engage in further regulation of the market to serve the interests of the New Zealand economy. The difference between some of us on this side of the House and others on that side of the House is that we have learnt from experience but they insist on repeating their mistakes.Charles Chauvel: Has the Minister seen any reports highlighting the problems with a sell-off of State-owned enterprises?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There are many such problems. One obvious one is the fact that most Kiwis do not agree with it. Indeed that is why Mr Key ran a mile as soon as Bill English floated the idea of privatising State-owned assets. Mr Key said the policy they had last time was timid but it was still far too bold for him and he wanted to retreat from it.Charles Chauvel: Has the Minister seen any reports on how the $400 million in dividends paid by State-owned enterprises over the last financial year would be replaced if they were sold?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No I have seen no such reports at all merely a blind faith that somehow or other this will lead to stronger growth in the New Zealandeconomy. It seems very odd to offer New Zealanders the chance to buy assets in organisations they already own.Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table a document listing 23 State assets sold by Michael Cullen and Helen Clark when they were in Cabinet.Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a comprehensive list including the sale of almost $8 billion worth of assets by the National Government.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Bill English: I seek leave to table the details of a sale of $1.4 billion worth of Meridian Energy by Dr Cullen 3 years ago.Document not tabled.Economy—Operating Balance Surpluses4.Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to theMinister of Finance: What is the cumulative total of any operating balance surpluses for the years 2005 2006 and 2007?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): The cumulative total was $26.4 billion. That is accounted for by accounting changes and revaluations of net $940 million; contributions to earnings on the New Zealand Superannuation Fund of $8.1 billion; net retained surpluses of State-owned enterprises and Crown entities which includes the other Crown financial institutions of $5.3 billion; purchases of fiscal assets of $5 billion; and advances and capital injections such as loans to district health boards and tertiary students of $5.8 billion.Hon Bill English: Why in 2005 election year when the surplus was $6.2 billion did the Government say that it could afford tax cuts but then in 2006 which was the year after the election when the surplus was almost twice as much at $11.4 billion the Government said it could not afford tax cuts?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If one refers to the Budget this year where the clearest statements were made around that matter I said quite clearly there was room for movement in that respect fiscally but the macroeconomic circumstances demanded a tight fiscal position. The reality is that if the member’s policies had been followed—his leader promised $11.7 billion of tax cuts in 2006—then interest rates would have had to go through the roof as monetary policy tried to counteract that massive fiscal stimulus.Hon Mark Gosche: What have been the advantages of this Government’s prudent approach to fiscal management?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Our approach has leant against domestic inflationary pressures it has acted as a buffer in terms of the major shocks in the world economy and has allowed us as many international commentators have pointed out to be one of the best-placed nations to face the challenges of an ageing population. We have also been able to redress National’s decade of underinvestment in infrastructure and to address National’s long period of increasing poverty amongst children. When it left office one-third of New Zealand’s kids were living in poverty.Hon Bill English: Will the Minister answer the question I asked him before which was this: why in election year 2005 when the surplus was $6.2 billion did he say he could afford tax cuts but in 2006 the year after the election when the surplus was $11.4 billion he decided he could not afford tax cuts and cancelled the ones he had promised?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member now understands why I gave him the answer I did. It was not in 2006 that the second decision was made; it was in the 2007 Budget.Hon Bill English: Why should the public believe anything this Minister says about lowering taxes when the last time he promised to lower them was in 2005 which was election year and then he went and cancelled that promise after the election?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I see that the member has now corrected himself and understands that in fact that change in policy was made in the 2007 Budget not the 2006 Budget. His research is very poor as per usual. The member will simply in some famous words have to wait and see and he may well have to eat his words; and we do not confidently predict that he will.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister of Finance as Minister of Finance when he is preparing Government economic policy does he consult his Cabinet colleagues and the Prime Minister or does he just make any old comment he likes in the hope that somehow his leader will adjust to it one day?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I thank the member for his question which gives me a chance to correct a rather common misimpression. Budgets under this Government are produced collectively and are signed off collectively by Cabinet and are prepared in close consultation with the Prime Minister.Hon Bill English: Does the Minister recall his statement last year: “If we were to clear the headroom for tax cuts it would mean huge cuts in spending.” and how is it that now that election year is coming he believes he can have tax reductions without any huge cuts in spending?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am sure the member is aware that in Budget 2006 Treasury was forecasting a cash deficit of $1.5 billion. I do not make up those estimates; they are arrived at by Treasury. Because growth has been stronger because we have maintained record low unemployment because we have maintained record high employment participation tax revenue has been up and expenditure down on forecast. That is a matter for celebration although the member does not seem to realise it. Treasury is now saying that it believes it will be able to revise upwards its future revenue forecast. That creates headroom without affecting the Government’s broad fiscal targets in terms of debt and the impact on themacroeconomy.Hon Bill English: As he has now confirmed that the Labour Government believes there is headroom to deliver lower taxes without big spending cuts why does he believe there is no headroom for National to deliver lower taxes without big spending cuts or is he going to stick to his hysterical fear campaign?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That is because just occasionally I take the member at his word and he said he has got to raise debt in order to afford his programme.Heather Roy: Is the Minister aware that the operating surplus announced today would be equivalent to an across-the-board tax rate of 20c in the dollar keeping the 15 percent rate for low-income earners at around $8.8 billion; and why does his Government refuse given these huge surpluses to give hard-working Kiwis meaningful tax cuts?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What the member is saying is that the Government should have run a $6 billion cash deficit. That would have required increased borrowing in 1 year alone of $6 billion—an increase in our gross debt of about 16 percent in 1 year requiring next year another nearly half a billion dollars of spending on just servicing that debt with at least a further $6.5 billion of cash deficit. If that is what the member is saying it is no wonder ACT is down to two members one of whom spends nearly all his time dancing or doing something else.Rates—Rebate Scheme5.STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to theMinister of Local Government: What reports if any has he received on the uptake of the Rates Rebate Scheme for the new financial year?Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government): I can advise that by the end of this week for the 2007-08 financial year ratepaying Kiwi households will have been rebated approximately $29.5 million. That is a promising increase over the equivalent stage last year showing that the expanded scheme has become better known and is popular for tens of thousands of low-income New Zealanders particularly those on fixed incomes.Steve Chadwick: The Minister referred to the uptake of the Rates Rebate Scheme last year; what was the final uptake for the whole of the 2006-07 financial year?Hon MARK BURTON: I am pleased to tell the House that the total for the 2006-07 financial year is almost $50 million paid to over 111000 households. As I indicated in response to the primary question rebates for this year are already running well ahead of the total for the same time last year.Taito Phillip Field—Ingram Report6.Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to thePrime Minister: Does she stand by her statements that she had no plans to investigate matters Dr Ingram was unable to resolve because she did not consider further expenditure of public money was warranted?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes. There was no reason for me as Prime Minister to commit further public money on the issue of whether there was a ministerial conflict of interest. The police have quite properly proceeded on from the information collected by the Ingram inquiry to investigate matters within their area of competence.Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statements following the release of the Ingram report that any further investigation into the alleged activities of Taito Phillip Field would serve “no good purpose whatsoever.” and that the issue of possible corruption by a member of Parliament was one of those issues that sort of does not resonate beyond the beltway?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The way has always been clear for the police to act on the allegations which appeared in the news media prior to the general election. What happened post the Ingram report was that they took the base of evidence collected there and proceeded on matters within their own competence.Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that the Prime Minister told the House in answer to a question on 1 August last year: “If the member had taken the time to read the report as thoroughly as I have he would have found out everything he wanted and needed to know about the matter.”; if so is it not fortunate that the police read the report a little more thoroughly than she did and carried out further investigations?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I have told the House on many occasions my job as Prime Minister is to look at whether there is a conflict of interest in terms of the ministerial guidelines. Mr Ingram of course brought forward a lot of information that went beyond that and that is the information on which the police have chosen to proceed.Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How does the Prime Minister reconcile her statement “I think if you read the Ingram report you’d be hard-pressed to find something that was prima facie illegal.” with the position of the New Zealand Police that following consideration of the Ingram report a criminal investigation was warranted?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The police of course have taken inquiries on from the Ingram report. The fact is they have yet to lay charges and the member of Parliament concerned has yet to be judged either guilty or not guilty.Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree with Fran O’Sullivan who wrote on 26 May this year: “The terms of reference the Prime Minister set for her ministerial inquiry into Taito Phillip Field’s dealings have finally been exposed as a sham by the police decision to lay corruption charges.” and “Clark’s repeated obfuscations … are breathtakingly cynical.”; if not why?Taito Phillip Field: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take exception to the inference of a shambles that is implied by that question. I think that it is unfair for a member to imply by his language any suggestion of guilt or responsibility for what may be assessed by the police themselves. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.Madam SPEAKER: The member is implying or stating that he believes there was a personal reflection on himself by the member?Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Just to help clarify the matter I did no more than simply quote what was written publicly by Fran O’Sullivan in referring to the Prime Minister’s setting of the terms of reference for the inquiry and ask her whether she agreed with what Fran O’Sullivan had said. I made no further personal comment at all.Hon Dr Michael Cullen: One cannot make a comment parliamentary by simply quoting something from outside. Once it is repeated inside this House it can become unparliamentary.Madam SPEAKER: I accept the point made by the Leader of the House but I think that in this instance the quote did not meet the test of being unparliamentary. So I ask the Prime Minister to answer the question.Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: For obvious reasons I seldom agree with Fran O’Sullivan. My job is to act in relation to Cabinet responsibility issues not to initiate investigations into the actions of members of Parliament. However if members opposite want to tempt me there is always the possibility of investigations into Nick Smith’s contempt of court Gerry Brownlee’s act of assault or whether Mr Groser still uses cannabis.Taito Phillip Field: Given the judicial processes we have seen in the last 2 years can the Prime Minister see the possibility of any benefit gained by any member of Parliament now being subject to investigation by the police; and given the results of that judicial process is there in her mind the possibility of every member of Parliament who has gained any benefit through his or her duties as a member of Parliament being thoroughly investigated and the possibility of those members being charged?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am not sure I ascertained the full import of the question but I repeat that as Prime Minister it is not my job to initiate investigations into the conduct of members of Parliament. My job relates to ministerial responsibilities and conflict of interest.Taito Phillip Field: Given the judgment that members of the public and this House are now aware of is it right to consider in this House the implication that if any members have gained a benefit through their duties as members of Parliament then they should also be subjected to investigation and possible charges as a result of gaining benefit through their duties as a member of Parliament?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I think the answer is that if there are allegations that a member has benefited financially from actions that he or she has undertaken as a member of Parliament then that would be a legitimate cause for police inquiry.Burma—Sanctions7.KEITH LOCKE (Green) to thePrime Minister: Will New Zealand be following the example of the European Union and the United States by imposing sanctions on either imports from Burma or investment in Burma or freezing any assets of members of the Burmese regime held in New Zealand?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): I am advised that New Zealand has not traditionally imposed economic sanctions other than those agreed to by the Security Council. Currently we do not have a legislative basis for imposing sanctions unilaterally. Both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I have asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for advice on whether it might be useful for New Zealand to have umbrella legislation that would enable us to impose financial or other sanctions in the future. At present we have to legislate case by case. We would support Myanmar being put on the Security Council agenda and would of course support and fully implement any sanctions agreed to by the Security Council.Keith Locke: Is not waiting for the United Nations to act in practice an excuse for inaction in that China is likely to veto any strong UN action including sanctions as it has in the past; and would it not be embarrassing if we keep importing for example teak furniture from Burma that is produced under virtually slave labour conditions when other nations in the European Union and America have implemented sanctions?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The point the member makes is exactly the reason why New Zealand from the very beginning of the United Nations has opposed the veto. That continues to be our position because it can stand in the way of something that the vast bulk of countries actually think would be desirable. But as I said to the member we are currently looking at whether we can improve the legislative basis for New Zealand to take action in future around sanctions. It is also worth pointing out that New Zealand has acted by postponing indefinitely the ASEAN - New Zealand dialogue meeting which was due to take place here in December co-chaired by Myanmar. We decided that would be completely inappropriate.Keith Locke: Will the Government be informing the New Zealand Superannuation Fund about the severe repression in Burma so that it can review its investments in Total and in Chevron Oil Co. companies that are major financial props for the Burmese regime; if not why not?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Certainly Total has significant investments there although I understand that the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation have shares in Total that represent about 0.1 percent of the total fund. Total will undoubtedly come under pressure particularly in Western Europe to withdraw its investments. But it is worth pointing out that when another Western company pulled out of the Myanmar oil industry in recent years the vacuum it left was immediately filled by Asian companies. That reinforces my point which is that in order for sanctions to be effective they really do need to be multilateral and imposed at the Security Council level.Keith Locke: Is it not true however that our sanctions because we are a small nation are symbolic but important none the less and that even though the superannuation fund’s investment in Total may be only $18 million it is still $18 million that actually helps the regime; and should we not respond to the call fromAung SanSuuKyi and the democracy movement to introduce sanctions or at least to remove investments that affect the ordinary people in Burma today?Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I repeat that traditionally the New Zealand view has been that sanctions need to be multilateral in order to be effective and that the evidence to date is that where Western companies have pulled out Asian companies have simplyfilled the void and have done so very happily. So I think we need a smarter approach than one of just some countries acting while others cream the rewards.Roading—Public-private Partnerships8.Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) to theMinister of Transport: Does she believe some new roads in New Zealand could be built as public-private partnerships; if so when does she expect to see the first of these occur?Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport): Yes I do. In fact I know that new roads can be built as public-private partnerships because in New Zealand the private sector already builds our roads which are funded by public moneys. It depends on how one defines public-private partnerships. The member has made it clear that he is talking about private financing and ownership. The advice we have received from Treasury is that it is sceptical of the value of this type of public-private partnership and believes that most of the benefits can be obtained in other ways.Hon Maurice Williamson: Can I ask whom the public should believe then: the Minister of Transport who just says that yes she does believe that new roads can be built by public-private partnerships or her front-bench colleague Steve Maharey who stated in thePress on 3 October: “The Government is ruling out the use of public-private partnerships in the state sector … even to help construct new roads”?Hon ANNETTE KING: I realise that the member had already written out his supplementary question and did not listen to my answer. I made it clear that we already have public-private partnerships. We have the private sector building the roads; we have the public sector paying for them.Madam SPEAKER: It is becoming difficult again to hear. If members do not stop barracking we will be hearing the answers in silence.Hon ANNETTE KING: I said that it was obvious that the member had already written out his supplementary question and that he had not listened to my answer. I made it clear that we already have public-private partnerships in that the public sector pays for the roads and the private sector builds them. My colleague was talking about the fact that we do not believe we need private sector money to build our roads because the Government can always borrow more cheaply than the private sector can and if the Government does allow the private sector to finance roads the people who will pay are the users—in other words those who use the roads. They will pay a premium for that.Hon Maurice Williamson: Can I then ask whom the public should believe: the Hon Paul Swain who when Minister of Transport said that “Alternative sources of funding such as tolling and public-private partnerships can allow communities to develop land transport infrastructure at a time and in a manner that suit them.” or her front-bench colleague Steve Maharey who has stated that the Government is ruling out the use of public-private partnerships especially in the construction of new roads?Hon ANNETTE KING: I say to that member “Watch this spot!” because we will soon have tolling—[Interruption] Just listen! We will soon have tolling on the Albany toPūhoi realignment B2. It is not a private road; it is a public road that was built with public money and is owned by the public. It will have a toll on it. That is what my colleague was talking about—alternative funds from the public.Hon Maurice Williamson: Should the public believe the words of Labour member Darren Hughes when he said about funding during the debate on the Land Transport Management Bill: “I welcome the public-private partnerships that are part of the bill. It is a very good thing to have that in law as a kind of innovative solution.” or those of the front-bench member for the Labour Party Steve Maharey who has said that this Government has ruled out any public-private partnerships funding especially for the construction of new roads?Hon ANNETTE KING: My colleague from the electorate ofOtaki welcomes what this Government has done with private sector involvement and that is build a road atMackays Crossing with public sector money. This Government believes in the public ownership of roads. We believe that the Government can pay for roads out of public money and we believe that the private sector knows how to build them.Peter Brown: Noting the questions that are coming from the Hon Maurice Williamson can the Minister advise the House whether she takes seriously reports from the former Minister given that he was the most consistent transport Minister that this country has ever had in that he stuffed up all modes of transport—Madam SPEAKER: That is not an appropriate question.Peter Brown: —and if the Minister does not agree—Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. Obviously that question contained information and irrelevant comment that the Minister has no ministerial responsibility for. If the member would like to rephrase his question to bring it within ministerial responsibility he can have one more go at it.Peter Brown: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was about two-thirds through the question and the tail end of the question would certainly make it a matter of ministerial responsibility.Madam SPEAKER: Well then just get to the tail end of the question first.Peter Brown: If the Minister does not believe my assertions that I have just made will she tell me which mode of transport—any one of them: air sea rail road land—the Government has not intervened in to fix?Hon ANNETTE KING: This Government with the assistance of New Zealand First and our other supply partners has managed to address all modes of transport. We have put more money into road transport. We have put considerably more money into rail and—and I emphasis this—we have bought back the tracks. Maritime transport has had attention that it had never had before.Hon Maurice Williamson: Oh rubbish!Hon ANNETTE KING: Oh yes it has. This Government also invested in Air New Zealand so that we retained our national airline. We have a proud record in transport. I do know that Maurice Williamson is a nice guy but he was a hopeless failure as a Minister of Transport. He never managed to have any money put into transport. He saw Auckland go from a disaster to an extreme disaster and we have been left to put in the money to fix the problem. We are certainly doing that and Auckland appreciates it. [Interruption]Madam SPEAKER: Now the Government side of the House is actually following the example of the Opposition. Would you please all control yourselves.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister seen reports of the reception of local government in Queenstown which was addressed by the then Minister of Transport Maurice Williamson of his proposal that all New Zealand roads would be managed by four privately owned companies—a policy written by JimMcLay now of Macquarie Bank that National is waiting to put into place if it ever gets into Government?Hon ANNETTE KING: What we have seen in the last week has been the exposure of the National Party’s real agenda. So when Maurice Williamson talks about public-private partnerships he is talking about the privatisation of our transport network in New Zealand. He has said it before he believes it and that is what National would do if it ever got on the Treasury benches.Hon Maurice Williamson: Do the Minister’s answers today about the exclusion of any private funding for roading mean that if the Transmission Gully project requires any private funding at all then it will not proceed under a Labour Government?Hon ANNETTE KING: There are several issues here. First of all this is the first Government—[Interruption]Madam SPEAKER: Now we will have this answer in silence. If anyone intervenes that member will be leaving the Chamber and that includes those on either front bench.Hon ANNETTE KING: There are a number of issues. First of all this is the first Government that has committed any money to even look at building a Transmission Gully road—$80 million to investigate the feasibility of it and work is under way. That could never happen under a National Government. Secondly the Government has already said that there is over $400 million of Government money to go towards it. Thirdly we have said there will be the ability to have a regional fuel tax which money could go to the Transmission Gully project. Fourthly they are looking at tolling it so the public would pay for it. Out of those options there would be money for the Transmission Gully project without anyone going to Macquarie Bank and National’s mates to put the money in.Health Services—Rural and Provincial Areas9.DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) to theAssociate Minister of Health: What action is the Government taking to enhance health services in rural and provincial New Zealand?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health): The Labour-led Government is very aware of the realities of rural life and we have introduced many initiatives to enhance rural health services. To list just a few there is the rural premium paid by district health boards toprimary health organisations with rural practices; a rural recruitment service providing for the recruitment of general practitioners and nurse practitioners; a rural innovation fund which encourages the uptake and spread of innovative approaches to care in the rural health sector; and the number of fully funded places for general practice training will rise from 69 a year to 104 from next February. Those are just a few of the many initiatives we have undertaken in this area.Darren Hughes: Is the Minister aware of any reports that would adversely affect health services in rural and provincial New Zealand?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Unfortunately yes. I read in disbelief that the National Party intends to let the market determine how much general practitioners will charge. Although the National health spokesperson tried very hard to keep it in the closet National has shown that it intends to treat the health care of New Zealanders as just another commodity for sale in the marketplace. National’s plan will simply not deliver the services our rural communities expect or deserve. Market forces will not moderate general practitioners’ fees in rural areas as there is often only one general practitioner available. In market terms that is a monopoly.Hon Tony Ryall: Can the Minister advise in respect of the area represented by the member who asked the main question what action the Government is taking to ensure that the 750 people on the Kapiti Coast who cannot register with a general practitioner can register and can the Minister also explain why the Government is supporting the privatisation of district nursing on the Kapiti Coast?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We are very aware of the challenges on the Kapiti Coast for some general practitioners. That is why we have in place supportive policies that assist to fund and support general practitioners and nurses right across the Kapiti Coast—and indeed across the country. The question I have for that member is whether he would guarantee if his market-forces policy came into being that those good patients at theWhakatane Medical Practice would pay $15.50 maximum for their general practitioner visits as happens under this Government’s policy. Would the market-forces policy guarantee those low access fees?Darren Hughes: In respect of the constituents on the Kapiti Coast who are waiting to be enrolled with a primary health organisation with a general practitioner can those constituents take the advice of John Key and just go down the road to another general practitioner if they do not like the prices or does the fact that there is a waiting list for my constituency just show that the market model and the invisible hand of the market does not work in the provision of general practitioner health services?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The fact that there is a waiting list indicates that the Kapiti Coast is a wonderful place to live in and that it is being well supported by the local members up there. The district health board is working through that issue to ensure that people can be registered with the primary health organisation in that area.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the statement by Damien O’Connor that he supports the privatisation of the Motueka—Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.Combined Threat Assessment Group—Reports10.Hon MURRAYMcCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) to theMinister of Foreign Affairs: How many reports from the Combined Threat Assessment Group have been received by his office since his appointment as Minister of Foreign Affairs and how have those reports been dealt with?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Since December 2005 374 Combined Threat Assessment Group reports have been generated. Combined Threat Assessment Group reports are dealt with in the same way as the literally thousands of cables emails and other voluminous reports are dealt with. My staff methodically vet the huge amount of material that comes through my office. The material ranges from being extremely sensitive and complex to the more mundane. My staff ensure that the material they deem important and relevant is passed to me. But equally they ensure that other less critical matters are handled at the appropriate level.Hon Murray McCully: Why did the Minister answer a question from me on 16 August as to whether any official from his ministry had communicated with him or his office in any form over the Air New Zealand charters by stating: “To the best of everyone’s recollections there were no communications to the Minister of Foreign Affairs or to his office.” when emails released yesterday make it clear that such a report was received and receipted by his office?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr McCully is on record as saying that I am technically correct. That means I am totally correct. He asked a question and I gave him the right answer as did Dr Cullen. As the media reported on 17 August there is not one new fact. No amount ofbotoxing will give it any life.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know you have given a number of warnings—[Interruption] This is a point of order is it not?Madam SPEAKER: It is a point of order. The member who intervened will leave the Chamber. Members have had so many warnings today.Phil Heatley withdrew from the Chamber.Ron Mark: You heard Dr Nick Smith say across the Chamber that the Minister is telling porkies which is tantamount to calling him a liar. Is that a parliamentary statement or an unparliamentary statement? Is he to remain in the Chamber?Madam SPEAKER: No I did not hear it. If the member takes objection—Ron Mark: I did.Madam SPEAKER: It is not you who takes objection. By this stage you must know what the Standing Orders are Mr Mark. If Mr Peters does not take objection then the matter lies there.Hon Murray McCully: Can the Minister now confirm to the House that according to emails released by his office just this morning the Combined Threat Assessment Group report received by his office was in fact sent there by none other than the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade as part of an internal Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade distribution list; and how does he possibly reconcile that with his earlier denial of receiving any communication from the ministry in any form?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In the same way that Mr McCully was forced to admit on radio last night and this morning that I was technically correct. Now either one is correct or one is not. But seeing as he has put the issues of honesty truth and veracity on the line here who had the company on the last of the 3½ pages of the bad-debtAdbro deal where the taxpayer bailed out over $1 million to a certain company? Who owned that?Hon Murray McCully: Is the Minister seriously asking the House to accept that a report forwarded to him by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade as part of a Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade distribution list does not constitute a communication in any form from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; if so why?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As Dr Cullen has pointed out the problem was that there was not any communication with the Ministers—neither the Prime Minister nor him nor Mr Goff nor me. That is the fact. That is what he said was “technically correct”. But then again seeing that the issue of honesty is in question here why did someone fail to get admitted to the Bar following law school? What was the reason for that—tell us Mr McCully; come on?Madam SPEAKER: That is inappropriate.Hon Murray McCully: Can the Minister confirm revelations from the emails he released this morning that on 15 August at approximately 5 p.m. a day before the Minister assured the House that his office had not received any communication from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in any form ministry officials delivered a second copy of the Combined Threat Assessment Group report to his office so that the document and the distribution list could be verified by his office and can he explain why he was still a day later denying that he had received any communications from the ministry when the report had then been delivered twice to the office by the ministry?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As I explained in my personal explanation on 15 August a Combined Threat Assessment Group report comes in. My official writes back to its origin and says: “Was this ever sent to this office? I want it checked out.” The external office came back with the reply “Yes in May” but neither in May nor on the 15th was the document shown to me until later on on the 16th when Mr Murdoch made the explanation that was given to this House. That is the chronology of events. Those are the facts.Hon Murray McCully: Does he stand by his statement on Radio New Zealand this morning that a staff member in his office had read the Combined Threat Assessment Group report; if so how does he reconcile that assertion with the statement in Mr Murdoch’s email released yesterday that the report was “ ‘receipted’—ie signed off but not read.”?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because the staff member like all the rest of them read the top of the Combined Threat Assessment Group report and did not read the substance. He thought he would be alerted by the headline of the report. It is a pretty ordinary explanation. That is exactly what happened.Keith Locke: What is the Government doing to rectify the abysmal understanding of the Government policy against the war in Iraq when the emails and documents disclosed show that so many officials gave the green light to our national flag carrier ferrying troops to Iraq—at least 12 officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials from the police from the Security Intelligence Service from the Defence Force officials in the offices of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs—and they all got it wrong; what is the Minister doing about it?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The simple fact is that Mr Fyfe of Air New Zealand called Simon Murdoch the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in January and he said he would get back to him because there would be more information. But he got back not to Mr Murdoch but to someone else. I believe the human error and disconnect happened there. To err is human; to forgive divine.Hon Murray McCully: I seek the leave of the House to table two documents. First I seek leave to table a letter signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr Peters and received by the Opposition this morning containing the distribution list from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the Combined Threat Assessment Group report—Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Murray McCully: Secondly I seek the leave of the House to table an email that refers to the request for a second copy of the Combined Threat Assessment Group report to go to the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs—Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Crown Land—Sale Process11.HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) to theMinister ofMāori Affairs:Mepēhearā a ia emōhiomēnā kataea e te kaupapahōuhoko whenuaKarauna te tiakingāpāngaMāori?[How can he be sure that the new process for the sale of Crown land will protectMāori interests?]Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister ofMāori Affairs):Ewhakaponoana au kawhakaahurutia e te kaupapahōumō tehokoingā whenua o teKaraunangāpānga o teMāorinō temea kawhakaratotēneiitētahi atuahurutangamō tewhānuitanga atu ongāngākaunuitanga o teMāoriarā tewhakataunga ongākerēme o Te Tiriti o Waitangingāwāriuahurea te tiakiingā taonga aPapatūānuku mengāwāriu tuku iho.[An interpretation in English was given to the House.][I am confident that the new process for the sale of Crown land will protectMāori interests because it provides an additional layer of protection that accounts for a broader set ofMāori interests including Treaty settlements and cultural conservation and heritage values.]Hone Harawira: Does the Minister stand by his comment: “Labour’sMāori caucus took a close look in the review to ensureMāori interests were accounted for and I’m pleased the new measures will achieve this.” when in fact the new process is entirely voluntary as opposed to the existing Office of Treaty Settlements land protection mechanism which was a mandatory scheme applying to all Government departments?Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I stand by that statement and the two separate levels that that member is talking about.Dave Hereora: How canMāori be confident that the new process will adequately protect their interests in particular pieces of land?Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA:Ehereaana etēnei kaupapahōungāmāngai ki teripoata ki teMinitairungaingāwāriungāahureangā tukuihotanga o te rohe mengāhākinakinaimua atui tewhaiwhakaarotanga ki te tukuingā whenua o teKarauna.Mātēnei ewhakarite kiamōhiongāMinita kingātāngata ewhaiwāhi maianatāpiri atu kingāpānga a teMāorii rotoi te whenuaimua atui tewhakaritenga ongāwhakataunga.[An interpretation in English was given to the House.][The new process requires officials to report to Ministers on a range of cultural heritage local and recreational values prior to the intended disposal of surplus Crown land. This ensures that Ministers are informed of all interests includingMāori interests in the land before making decisions.]Hone Harawira: Does the Minister stand by his claim that the new process adds a new layer of protection forMāori interests; if so what does he have to say about the advice that neither he the LabourMāori caucus his department nor local iwi were consulted before one State-owned enterprise advised the Government that it would not be complying with the policy of protecting land in whichMāori have an interest and that it had in fact already sold land under its control?Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: In moving on all State-owned enterprises have voluntarily committed to being part of this process.Hone Harawira: Would the Minister agree thatMāoridom will rightly feel that they have again been betrayed by this Labour Government when he tellsMāori people that the new process adds a new layer of protection forMāori interests but in fact under this new process the Government can still sell Landcorp land to the highest bidder for any public policy reasons that it deems appropriate at that time?Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I am sure that member would consider and concede as the co-leader of theMāori Party did who lavished support on the Government and theMāori caucus for getting to this stage. Certainly he did say on 24 September that he was pleased with the comments made by the Prime Minister Helen Clark and that the Government had to be sensitive when there were historical recreation and Treaty issues in relation to Landcorp properties that might be sold. This is an overarching issue. It caters for all vested interests in this land especiallyMāori interests including Treaty settlements.Electoral Finance Bill—Regulated Period12.Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to theMinister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement regarding the regulated period contained in the Electoral Finance Bill that it “is longer than the Canadian but briefer than the United Kingdom’s and it seemed an appropriate and reasonable period on balance.”; if so why?Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Yes; because it did.Hon Bill English: Why did he not tell the House that the UK in the first election after its law was passed did not in fact apply the 12-month period because it thought the rules were too complicated and no one understood them and in fact the regulated period was about 4 months; and why did he not tell the House when he quoted the Canadian Supreme Court that that decision was justifying a 6-week regulated period which puts quite a different slant on Canada’s repression of free speech?Hon MARK BURTON: Because as the member knows I have spoken at length on the detail of the length of the regulated period in both the Canadian and UK jurisdictions. That was not the nature of the question the member asked at the time. But I have given that information at length to the House.Hon Bill English: So can the Minister confirm that he has come to the House to justify the regulated period of the whole of an election year by using a CanadianSupreme Court opinion that applied to a 6-week period and a set of rules in the UK that simply were not applied at the first election after they were passed?Hon MARK BURTON: I can confirm to the member that the case I specifically referred to yesterday from the Canadian Supreme Court was an appropriate reference because—Hon Bill English: No it wasn’t.Hon MARK BURTON: Of course it was. New Zealand courts draw very heavily on Canadian judgments when considering matters related to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that is a relevant reference. The key issue here is whether New Zealand’s electoral system can and should be protected from the sort of rort that we saw the National Party engage inin 2005. It can and it must.R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister believe as we do that the implementation of the Electoral Finance Bill will enhance fairness and free speech in future New Zealand general elections?Hon MARK BURTON: Indeed I do and I believe that the good work that the Justice and Electoral Committee will be continuing to engage in over the next little while will further refine and enhance the value of that legislation. But I am absolutely confident that it can improve certainly the protection for the right of ordinary New Zealanders to participate in their electoral system without the sort of corrupt practice we saw on the part of some in 2005.Hon Bill English: If the Minister is motivated by stopping rorts then why has he put a provision in a bill that explicitly legalises the rort the Labour Party carried out with the pledge card; and if it did not think that was a rort why did it pay the money back?Hon MARK BURTON: As usual the member fires wild unsubstantiated and largely unrelated assertions that simply do not stand up to scrutiny.Hon Bill English: Why is the Government persisting with legislation that legally bans the expression of political opinion during election year unless it meets strict legal criteria when every submission to the select committee opposed the bill?Hon MARK BURTON: Yet again the member makes a demonstrably inaccurate assertion in this House. That is factually incorrect. I have—clearly Mr English does not—considerable confidence in the value that select committees add to the work of this Parliament. One of my colleagues yesterday referred to them as the engine room of the parliamentary process and I believe they are. We have said from day one that the select committee process we anticipate will add considerable value and refinement to the provisions of this bill. I believe that to be the case and I look forward to the final enactment of the legislation when the select committee reports it back to the House.Question No. 10 to MinisterRON MARK (NZ First): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am seeking your advice. In your comments to me on the point of order I took you suggested that I should refer to the Standing Orders and understand them a little better. I am looking at Standing Orders 115 and 116 in respect of offensive and disorderly words and personal reflections. Paragraph 115 states: “If any offensive or disorderly words are used whether by a member who is speaking or by a member who is present the Speaker intervenes.” The next one paragraph 116 “Personal reflections” states: “A member may not make an imputation of improper motives against a member an offensive reference to a member’s private affairs or a personal reflection against a member.” There is no further statement there giving a caveat as you had suggested. I have looked atSpeakers’ Rulings and I cannot find the statement that the offence must be taken by the member to whom the comment was aimed. All I can read is that the Speaker intervenes. If you can help me and steer me to the right Speaker’s ruling or the rightStanding Order then I might better understand these Standing Orders going forward. I would be extremely grateful.Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for his comments. There are no vicarious objections that can be taken on a personal reflection by others. I am happy to speak and give the member some guidance outside the Chamber on Standing Orders and of course Speakers’ rulings.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not querying your decision because I would like to know what your explanation to Mr Mark is in due course but it did concern me at the time. However I do have a written proposal to the National Party that if its members stop telling lies about me I will stop telling the truth about them.Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.Questions to MembersElectoral Finance Bill—Oral Submissions1.CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to theChairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: How many submitters were invited to give oral evidence to the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Electoral Finance Bill on Monday 17 September 2007?LYNNE PILLAY (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): None. On 17 September the committee heard from submitters who had requested to be heard. The committee heard from 23 submitters who had requested to be heard at that meeting.Christopher Finlayson: Why was it that those submitters who requested to be heard were rushed through their evidence on Monday 17 September and the committee has had to meet outside normal sittings hours including during the adjournment yet only 15 minutes have been set aside to consider this matter at tomorrow’s meeting?LYNNE PILLAY: The member who is the deputy chair of the committee has misinformed the House and is either confused or deliberately being misleading. However the issue is committee business and those decisions will be made by the committee.