Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5242] 
Questions to Ministers 
Pharmaceuticals—Pan Pharmaceuticals Products 
1. STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: What actions have been taken by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority and in the Ministry of Health in relation to the Pan Pharmaceutical products available in New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 Since the announcement by the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration the New Zealand Food Safety Authority and the Ministry of Health have been working with their Australian counterparts and distributors here in New Zealand to identify and arrange for the voluntary withdrawal from the market by New Zealand companies of products identified as being of concern that have been manufactured by Pan Pharmaceuticals. I can assure the House that for the purpose of protecting the public I will issue a recall notice when specific products are identified if they have not already been withdrawn and the recall meets the requirements of section 40 of the Food Act. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Does the recall of the Pan Pharmaceutical products in Australia indicate a need for improved regulatory framework in New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. New Zealand law is outdated and deficient. I have been working to secure new legislation that will ensure that New Zealanders can have confidence in the dietary supplements they purchase. We need a register of all products on sale we need the ability to audit the quality of the products and the ability to initiate recalls and warnings quickly. However my efforts to get regulatory powers similar to those in Australia have been made harder by political opposition. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Does not the failure of Pan Pharmaceuticals show how foolish it would be to simply hand New Zealand’s regulatory process over to an Australian model that obviously does not work; and does not this whole saga demonstrate that while we need regulation it must be well-thought-through and actively be effective? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is the most bizarre question. It obviously did work in Australia. The Therapeutic Goods Administration did work in Australia. It found the product. The recall is from May 2002 because it audits every year. We do not do that in New Zealand. Dr Scott has said that she does not want that sort of regulatory regime in New Zealand because everything here is all right. That is wrong. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that the dietary supplements industry had reached agreement with the Ministry of Health back in 1998 for dietary supplement products to be notified electronically on a register and supplies to become licensed and that had that agreement been implemented with the industry instead of being put on hold while the Minister pursued plans to hand over control of our industry to the bloated Australian-dominated Australian authority which has been found to have systematic failures we would be in a better position today to protect consumers and swiftly recall products? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is not correct because I would assume that if agreement had been reached in 1998 for that to happen the previous Government—long before I became Minister and looked at this issue—would have agreed to that agreement. In fact there has not been agreement over the regulation of dietary supplements. I have certainly taken responsibility for it. However in political terms I have faced people like Lynda Scott who have a select committee inquiry not wanting to regulate but to be on the side of business. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the Minister concerned that what can most accurately be described as a quality control failure by one overseas manufacturer of pharmaceuticals and complementary medicines will deter the public from purchasing similar treatments from reputable local producers and is she doing anything to ensure that consumers are aware of that distinction for the sake of those businesses? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member makes a very good point and it is the reason that the products that Pan Pharmaceutical produced will be published for everybody to see so that responsible companies are not labelled in the same way. 
Immigration—Fraud 
2.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Is the New Zealand Immigration Service conducting inquiries into improper false or fraudulent immigration incidents; if so how many? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Immigration) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Immigration 
: Yes of course the New Zealand Immigration Service conducts inquiries into improper false or fraudulent immigration incidents and such inquiries are initiated on an ongoing basis. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That Minister has had 4 hours in which to answer the question “how many?”. The question is patently and clearly on today’s Order Paper. Why do I have to get up now to elicit on a supplementary question information that he has had 4 hours to glean prepare and bring down to this House? That is my point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question. He indicated there were a number of incidents. It is not for me to say whether that is a satisfactory answer. He did address the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Minister why he wasted 4 hours on not answering my question; if he does not know the number why does he not tell this House and having said that could he clarify what he meant in respect of his answer given that the principal Minister on 29 April in response to a written question said: “The NZIS pursues all incidents of possible fraud brought to its attention that merit investigation.” and that it took an insightfully humiliating  
Assignment  
programme investigation to alert her to the need to investigate openly advertised immigration scams in Auckland? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I understand there are two questions there. With regard to the first question as of today I am unable to specify exactly how many investigations are under way. I am however advised that as of 31 March this year there were approximately 300 investigations into immigration fraud under way and there were 14 investigations under way into allegations against Immigration Service staff. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I feared that that would be exactly what would happen. The Minister having had as the Rt Hon Winston Peters said 4 hours in which to answer the question clearly did have the information that he was asked for. He knew how many incidents were being investigated as at 31 March and he went on to say that he did not have an exact number for today—but we are only 1 month on from then. The issue is that when a question is put down for oral answer Ministers withhold the answer and then seek to have the Opposition waste another supplementary question to get the information asked for in the primary question. That is a hopeless situation—[ 
Interruption 
] If the Leader of the House wants to interject while I am on my feet I think that is unparliamentary. It is a hopeless situation when Ministers are asked a question on notice have the information and then refuse to hand it out in their primary answer so that it has to be wheedled out of them at a later date. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When the Minister answered the original question he could have given that number in the answer. The question was asked in two parts however. The member asked another part of the question and the Minister addressed that particular part. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: With regard to the second part of the question there are many allegations of improper practice made on a daily basis. Each of those has to be thoroughly investigated before we can make any claims. That process will continue as the service is determined to make sure there are no corrupt practices under way at any stage. Investigations will be undertaken where they are deemed necessary. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What has this current Government done to improve the processes for investigating fraudulent immigration incidents? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: In 2001 the New Zealand Immigration Service established a fraud investigations unit. That unit and the investigation systems were created by the Labour-led Government. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Did the Minister’s second answer include the plethora of scams I have brought before Parliament including the Fernridge Institute of Training which is running a sham establishment founded to ensure that the owners of the company have a steady source of cheap labour in this country the death of a Japanese national at the rogue Columbus Academy the investigation into exploited Ukrainian farm workers in an approved scheme openly advertised immigration scams as the  
Assignment 
 programme proved and so-called refugees who can live here for months on end at a cost of millions of dollars to New Zealand taxpayers who finance their health care social welfare benefits housing and legal aid costs—does his answer include all those people as well? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: As I said there are over 300 investigations under way. With regard to the Fernridge Institute of Training the Department of Labour is continuing to investigate the allegations of improper immigration and employment practices by that training organisation. A labour inspector is examining wage records held by the Fernridge Institute of Training to determine whether the students have received their minimum legal entitlements. 
Energy Exploration—Gasfields 
3.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What steps if any will he take to ensure that neither the Department of Conservation nor his own statutory powers unnecessarily impede efforts by the petroleum exploration industry to discover and bring into production new gasfields in light of the depletion of Maui and the growing electricity crisis? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Decisions on petroleum exploration in conservation areas are made under the Crown Minerals Act. I would obviously ensure that decisions are made in accordance with that Act. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Would the proposed Marine Reserves Bill grant the Minister the power to deny petroleum exploration permit-holders automatic access to territory within a marine reserve even if they had met the “minimum impact activity criteria” under the Crown Minerals Act; if it would what effect does he think such a veto power will have on petroleum exploration incentives in New Zealand? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: We have already faced the issue of drilling in a marine protected area in Taranaki and a very innovative programme of directional drilling took place. It is possible to have drilling in a conservation area that does not disturb the biodiversity of that area. 
David Parker 
: Have there been any requests for access to conservation areas from the petroleum industry in recent years? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am not aware of any requests for access in the last 3 or 4 years. 
Shane Ardern 
: Noting that the petroleum industry is against the Marine Reserves Bill in this Minister’s name that the proposed changes to the Resource Management Act will make it more difficult to obtain resource consent on private land and the present view that he takes on conservation land does the Minister now accept he is the greatest problem in solving this country’s current energy crisis? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is he aware of any demands that were made by United Future on issues like this at the time that that party gave an undertaking to the Government on the question of supply or did United Future just lie down and play mouse? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I could not really comment on that matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a pretty simple question. I asked whether he was aware of that. He either is aware or is not. It is not for him to say that he will not comment on that; that is why we have question time. For goodness’ sake this is getting beyond a joke and that Minister should be told to either answer the question or resign. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can say he will not comment. He can say that. I would actually like the Minister to repeat his answer. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He was actually asked as is legitimate two questions: is it one situation or the other? The answer cannot be no. It might be that the Minister is embarrassed but the answer cannot be no. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member was asked “Is he aware” and he said “No.” To me that is a complete answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked him was he aware of any demands made by the United Future party at the time of the undertaking being given on the question of supply or did it just lie down and play mouse? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No he has no responsibility there. He was asked: “Is he aware” and he said “No.” 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Given that the Government intends to extend the Marine Reserves Act over the full exclusive economic zone apparently in breach of the international law of the sea does he share the concern of the Petroleum Exploration Association which fears that the Minister of Conservation’s approval will be required before any approval is given even to prospect for gas and oil reserves which are much needed for this country? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can report that the Department of Conservation has an excellent relationship with the petroleum industry and we are very keen to maintain that. 
Shane Ardern 
: I seek leave of the House to table two documents one being the submission on the Resource Management Act from the Petroleum Exploration Association and the other being the submission on the Marine Reserves Bill from the Petroleum Exploration Association. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those two submissions. Is there any objection? There is. 
Electricity—Supply 
4.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Does he stand by his statement of October 2002 that “there is no cause for high anxiety” in relation to New Zealand running out of power in the near future; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 The sentence that the member quotes in part began with the words: “While the risk of problems in exceptionally dry years is always with us …”. I therefore stand by it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: From the same article: is he still as happy to explain why “there is no possibility of electricity shortages in New Zealand” as he was in November last year; and does he think that his explanation will give elderly freezing in their homes businesses that shut down and families without hot water for up to 18 hours a day comfort that he knows what he is doing? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member has already indicated his ability to partially quote bits out of context. If he continues to do so I will continue to give him the context. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need a point of order. I want the Minister to perhaps develop the answer a little further. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have asked the Minister to give an answer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I appreciate that and my point of order might help him. I seek leave to table the article concerned so that the Minister might be able to refer to the quotes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is done at the end—but leave is sought to table. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No I do not agree. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Would the Minister consider— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The answer from the Minister was “No I do not agree.” What does he not agree to? He was asked whether he is still willing to explain— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member is just being— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No I am not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member was asked whether he agreed and he said no he did not. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No he was not asked that. The question was very specific: is he happy to explain why “there is no possibility of electricity shortages in New Zealand” as he was in October last year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister said “No”. He can say “Yes” or “No” in answer to a question— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No no. He said: “No I don’t agree.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Would the Minister classify the year 2003 as an exceptionally dry year; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The first half of 2001 saw the lowest inflows ever recorded. Inflows in 2003 so far are somewhat lower so yes it is exceptional. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting the earlier answers to Gerry Brownlee’s questions does the Minister accept that right now there are employers working people and elderly retired folk on fixed incomes who are very worried about the current situation—indeed are very worried about how the whole thing has been handled—and how will the Minister allay their fears without some sort of flippant answer? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not think that this is a flippant issue at all. Yes I accept that we might well be in serious difficulty and that we might end up with some social and economic disruption if we are not able to save sufficiently now. That is why the Government has asked the State sector to show leadership and get itself to a position of 15 percent savings in electricity and why the electricity industry has asked New Zealanders as a whole to try to meet savings of 10 percent. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Does the Minister recall telling a Dunedin election meeting in July last year that as a result of his energy reforms he could assure the public that they would see no more newspaper headlines saying “Power cuts likely”; and given headlines like the one in this Tuesday’s  
New Zealand Herald 
: “Power cuts loom as lake levels slump … a worried watchdog lifts the electricity saving target to 10 percent” will he now accept that his policies have failed; if he does why does he not resign? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question was too long but the last part of the question was in order. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: In answer to the first part of the question I do not recall telling an election meeting in Dunedin what the member suggested I told it but if he has any record of that I would be very happy to see it. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Given the fact that the State-owned enterprise Genesis Energy has not been running the Huntly power station at capacity over recent weeks and months—reportedly because it did not order enough coal soon enough—which has caused the lake levels to drop further what steps is the Minister taking to hold Genesis accountable for its lack of social responsibility and contingency planning? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member would not be surprised to know that we are in regular contact with Genesis Energy. However it is fair to suggest that earlier this week there was quite a lot of shift in the fossil fuel situation that Genesis now faces. Specifically some gas contracts involving Contact Energy have been brought forward and my hope is that Huntly will now move to a higher rate of generation. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Noting that in the answer to Ross Robertson the Minister has now recognised he was wrong last October and that we now do have an electricity crisis will he be supporting suggestions from people like Roger Sutton the chief executive of line company Orion New Zealand who suggested that short power blackouts might be required to scare people into power savings and suggestions from others of domestic water heating cuts of up to 18 hours a day; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Water heating cuts are likely to begin quite soon and initially they are likely to be quite short. In fact they might already have begun in certain parts of the country—2 hours here 4 hours there and so on. If we are to do what we did in 1992 and move to the next step of 18-hour power cuts for water heaters that will start to save electricity because it will reduce the amount of hot water available to consumers. Blackouts on the other hand are very much a last resort. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister intend fronting power-saving advertisements on television as he did during the last power crisis? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The industry has some television advertisements beginning on Saturday or Sunday—I cannot remember which—that are not being fronted by me. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement on 5 October last year that Mr Gerry Brownlee was irresponsibly scaremongering when he said that if there were not more generation we faced the risk of brownouts or blackouts; and now that he is wrong will he apologise to National’s spokesperson on energy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Around that time last year Mr Brownlee put out a number of remarkable statements. In particular my statement saying that he was scaremongering had nothing to do with generation—I have been misquoted again—but was actually to do with Transpower forecasting in its supply security notice on which he said that some security problem at the top half of the South Island meant we would all be plunged into darkness. Transpower then went on TV3 and said that Mr Brownlee had it wrong. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table a report released today talking of rolling blackouts across Tauranga City during peak times in which the Port of Tauranga says that without power for cranes New Zealand’s largest export port would “grind to a standstill”. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the article published on 5 October in the  
Press 
 of Christchurch in which Mr Hodgson said that Mr Brownlee was scaremongering to warn of brownouts and blackouts. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that press release. Is there any objection? There is. 
English as a Second Language—Government Services 
5.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Ethnic Affairs 
: What measures has the Government taken to enable non - English speaking New Zealanders to access Government services more easily? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) 
: 
 Yesterday I launched the pilot of the Government-funded telephone interpreting service called Language Line. The service will encompass 30 languages and will be tested by six Government departments to enable better communication with non - English speaking New Zealanders. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What benefits will Language Line bring for ethnic New Zealanders Government departments and taxpayers? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Non-English speakers and those with limited language will have access to core Government services such as being able to lodge calls to the police in their own language. This is a practical solution to improve the ability of non-English speakers to settle quickly into our society. It will also increase the efficiency of Government departments and minimise costly confusion and error. 
Pansy Wong 
: Can he confirm that his new Language Line is contracted to an Australian company; if so why does he have no confidence in New Zealand interpretation service providers? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am delighted to announce that 26 New Zealanders will be participating as translators with another 200 applications for interpreter positions being processed. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This Minister has been delaying question time all week because he will not answer a question. He was asked a simple question which I still do not know the answer to. The question was whether it was an Australian company. Instead he told us that it is employing New Zealanders. I suppose we are to take from that that it is an Aussie company and we are cheap labour. Why can we not have the answer to the question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wonder whether the Minister was going to mention that particular point. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Yes I can confirm that an Australian-owned company was the most cost-effective. However I am delighted to report that it is also a company that is committed to employing New Zealanders. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The Minister is answering and he is entitled to give an answer. I want him to be able to do so. Some of the suggestions that are being made would mean that he would not be able to answer any questions. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you can take it from some of the disorder that the practice this Minister indulges in—and he is not the only one but he is the one today—of changing his answer when he is asked to stand again and answer the question and the second time giving the correct answer holds the House in contempt. I hesitate to say that it invites disorder but that is much more likely to happen. The Minister was asked a question directly but did not answer it. He then stood again to answer the question and this time he did answer it clearly as he should have the first time. It puts all Opposition parties in a difficult position if they always have to ask two questions to get the answer that the Minister is clearly willing to give eventually but will not give when the question is asked first up. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did answer the question and it was not within the new supplementary question; it was on the same question. I insisted that he give that extra information. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that this country suffers now from serious shortages in health education infrastructure and police funding to name but a few why on earth do we have—according to his own press statement—300000 people in this country who now cannot speak English or speak very little English at all; how did that happen other than that he belongs to a Government that set out by its immigration policy to betray the interests of the New Zealand taxpayer? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Many of the people who will be using this line became permanent residents of this country when that member was Deputy Prime Minister and there were much lower English language criteria for immigration. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You would remember very well that in October 1995 the then National Party because of pressure on immigration matters changed the English language requirement. They complained about it and now that he has changed it again— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a debating point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No it is not. I am getting to my point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member had better get to it quickly or he will be leaving. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I will get to it when I feel like it and it is when I feel like it. I need to explain to you what I mean. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. Points of order must be made tersely. The member was not making his point of order tersely. He then compounded the matter by making a criticism. I am going to ask him to withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What comment? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The one relating to me. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I did not make a comment about you. I said I would answer it and spend my own time doing that. If you do not like that I apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will withdraw and apologise for his comments. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Here is my point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. Here is my point. The Minister was asked about his responsibility. This Government has been in power now for 4 years and that Minister gets up makes a totally false statement does not answer the questions and you let him get away with it again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I did not. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said. He addressed that particular question. 
Taxation—Corporate Tax Rate 
6.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: In light of accountancy firm KPMG’s survey of 68 countries that shows New Zealand’s corporate tax rate of 33c is above the OECD average of 31.68 percent and that seven of the 30 OECD countries have cut their corporate tax rates over the last year will the Government lower New Zealand’s corporate tax rate to help New Zealand compete in the global economy for investment? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: When reaching the decision not to cut corporate tax rates did the Minister take any note of the statement by KPMG senior tax partner Mr Sharma that New Zealand needed to offer a better tax rate to attract corporates from Australia: “To compete with countries outside its close geography New Zealand should offer a rate closer to 20 percent.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. I note that Mr Sharma thought the tax rate before 1989 was 28 percent which is a 20 percent error. I note also that the total corporate tax levels in New Zealand are low by OECD standards because we do not have a range of other taxes on the corporate sector. 
David Cunliffe 
: What are the Government’s major priorities in the area of company tax reform? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We want to make it simpler especially for small and medium sized enterprises. There is a big work programme under way and people will have to wait approximately 2 weeks minus about 10 minutes or so to find out some of the details. 
Dr Don Brash 
: What is the Minister’s response to KPMG’s senior tax partner Brahma Sharma’s comment that he has spoken to several clients over the past year including one looking to establish a processing factory and another a regional distribution centre who have taken their business to Australia after being disheartened by New Zealand’s corporate tax rate; and how does the Minister propose to encourage investment in New Zealand if we cannot at least create a somewhat level playing field by meeting Australia’s corporate tax rate? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My response would be to send him a copy of the statement made by that member that reducing the corporate tax rate alone would not have any material beneficial effect on growth. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister agree that because New Zealand customarily runs interest rates higher than Australian and other overseas jurisdictions the cost of capital is higher for New Zealand companies and would not a cut in the company tax rate therefore be a good way to create a level playing field and restore their competitive position? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As the head of I think it is Fletcher Building has pointed out—who is an Australian—the total burden of corporate tax in Australia is higher. Australia has payroll taxes and a range of other taxes which corporates do not have to bear in New Zealand. 
Gambling—Problem Gambling 
7.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: Has he received any advice about the extent and cause of the increase in problem gambling in 2002; if so what is he planning to do about it? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 Yes the Responsible Gambling Bill includes a number of measures to prevent and minimise problem gambling. 
Sue Bradford 
: Given the dramatic 21 percent rise in problem gambling reported by the problem gambling committee just this week will the Minister now amend the Responsible Gambling Bill to make it more responsible and to give local councils the right to control the activities of pokie venues in their communities including pokie bars that were in place as of October 2001? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The member knows that the Government has moved to make sure that local bodies have some part to play in the increase of gaming places in their own area. 
Dianne Yates 
: What does the Responsible Gambling Bill do to prevent and minimise problem gambling? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Among other things the bill as reported back provides for an integrated problem gambling strategy and requires gaming-machine societies and casino operators to develop a policy of identifying problem gamblers. 
Judith Collins 
: What advice and from whom has the Minister received on raising the problem gambling levy or excise and the effect of any such increase on the level of funds available to be distributed to sporting community and cultural groups via the gaming trusts? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: There is nothing in the Responsible Gambling Bill that deals with excise rates and if the member wants those she should ask the appropriate Minister. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was what advice and from whom has the Minister received about raising the gaming tax and what is happening with it. In his answer he talked about what is in the Responsible Gambling Bill. Those are completely different issues. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister addressed the question that was asked. 
Marc Alexander 
: Is the Minister aware of any hard evidence or research that shows that an increase in the gaming levy will have any effect whatsoever on the rate of problem gambling? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think the member’s own leader in an article in the  
Nor’West Newsbrief 
 of 30 April stated that making the current system more transparent would help in that matter. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why does the Minister consider that local councils and local territorial authorities have only “some part to play” in determining exactly where and how many pokie-machines there should be in their own districts given that places like Manukau City have enormous problems caused by the proliferation of pokies? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is too much background noise. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Local government authorities already have powers in their planning to limit them and I think that what is in the bill goes a long way to minimising the harm of problem gambling in places like Manukau. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister think that the pokie trusts are the right way to distribute the proceeds of problem gambling given the 206 enforcement actions taken against them in the 8 months to February this year which include that of the New Zealand Community Trust site in Newtown where the manager controlled who could get the applications and that of the Pub Charity site at Bowland Porirua where Pub Charity awarded a grant to Bowland itself for an oiling machine? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think the member must realise that what she has told us shows that the present system is working. 
Electricity—Dobson Hydro Scheme 
8.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Does he stand by his press statement of 29 April 2003 that the land to be swapped for the Dobson Dam hydro project is of “much lower value”; if so how does he reconcile that statement with a Department of Conservation report on Mount Buckley that says the land has “nationally important conservation values” “high landscape value” is a “crucial wildlife habitat link” and recommends that all of the Mount Buckley block be added to the Crown estate? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want there to be as little background noise as possible. I find it difficult to hear too. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was a lot of background noise following that answer to question No. 7 because a lot of members here are totally confused as to what the Minister said. He said the present system is working; if it is why are we changing it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was not the background noise I was referring to at all. The member knows that too. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Yes Mount Buckley is of lower value. The report the member is quoting from also states that the valley floor forest in the Card Creek ecological area is the richest known site for native birdlife in the whole of north Westland. Ecologists advise me that kahikatea forest is much scarcer than steep hill-country forest as represented at Mount Buckley. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How would the Minister know that was true when he has never visited the area concerned and when the member of Parliament for West Coast - Tasman promised in October 2002 that he would be visiting that month? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am delighted to report that I will be visiting in a couple of weeks’ time. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member has stated that I promised—[ 
Interruption 
] I would like that member to table— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a point of debate. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister explain why the Card Creek ecological area was extended in 1997? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: To quote from the  
Gazette 
 notice one of the key reasons for extending the reserve was to add to the size and long-term viability of the principal reserve as a significant wildlife habitat. The Minister of Conservation at the time the Hon Dr Nick Smith clearly appreciated the regionally unsurpassed wildlife values of that area. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Does he accept what most of us know—that is the Department of Conservation will claim that any piece of land has nationally important conservation values has high landscape values or is a crucial and unique wildlife link—and that that is why he as Minister is required to exercise discretionary powers and not just say no to every development proposal on Department of Conservation land; and when will he start acting as the Minister and not simply be advocate for the department in this Parliament? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: That question contained a number of erroneous implications one of which is that the Department of Conservation says no to developments on conservation land. I am sure I do not need to remind the member that the biggest hydro development extension in recent history in this country was at Manapouri in the middle of a World Heritage site and the Department of Conservation approved that development. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is it not undesirable for him in his role as advocate for the conservation estate to have the statutory power to veto completely uncontested proposals like the Dobson scheme—a decision that other interests with different viewpoints cannot seek to appeal or arbitrate in any way—if not why not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: As Minister of Conservation I have a statutory duty to be an advocate for conservation values but the Department of Conservation is a department that seeks dialogue with any applicant for development. Just recently I looked at the figures for mineral development under the Crown Minerals Act and the Conservation Act and 80 percent of applications were approved. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: What are the criteria for a nationally important conservation value when compared with a nationally important productive value and why should conservation values take precedence given much-improved scenario modelling for power shortages for the years ahead regardless of rainfall? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Successive Governments of this country whether they be led by the Labour Party or the National Party have endorsed conservation as a value that is important to all New Zealanders. 
Gordon Copeland 
: How can the conflict between his desire to preserve the Dobson kahikatea trees and the needs of this nation for electricity generation for dry-year conditions be resolved in the national interest? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have already reported to this House that hydro electricity development projects have taken place on conservation land—for example Manapouri. I could list a number of other examples as well. 
Stephen Franks 
: In view of the Minister’s response to my colleague Gerry Eckhoff is there any level of social misery or economic hardship so serious that it could persuade him to swap the Department of Conservation gorse broom and kahikatea for the Dobson scheme; and if he thinks that the Conservation Act will not let him what steps has he or any other Minister taken to change that law? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Card Creek ecological area was gazetted and extended—both times under National Governments—for very valid reasons because it is an area of high ecological value. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That has to be trifling with the Chair. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member was asked a more specific question. To develop it perhaps he could add a couple of sentences to his answer. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought the question related to the Dobson dam issue. Could the member repeat the question? 
Stephen Franks 
: Is there any level of social misery or economic hardship so serious that it would persuade him to swap the Department of Conservation gorse broom and kahikatea for the Dobson scheme; and if he thinks that the Conservation Act will not let him what steps is he or any other Minister taking to change that law? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: It is my duty as the Minister of Conservation to be an advocate for the environment. Each application to develop a project on conservation land must be looked at on its own merits. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
Nelson Evening Mail 
 of 11 October in which Mr O’Connor states: “Mr Carter is due to visit the area before the end of the month”. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Music—Government Support 
9.  
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: What has the Government done to assist New Zealand music? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 We are assisting the development and growth of all forms of music in New Zealand first of all by supporting New Zealand Music Month which my T-shirt is a symbol of. But we are also working through the New Zealand Music Industry Commission New Zealand On Air Creative New Zealand Te Mangai Paho the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Trade New Zealand and Industry New Zealand and we have funded initiatives like the World Series. 
Darren Hughes 
: Following on from those Government initiatives how has the New Zealand music industry developed in the past 5 years? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Five years ago the amount of the New Zealand music played across New Zealand radio was 5.27 percent and sales of New Zealand music albums sat at about 4 percent of total sales. The latest figures from New Zealand On Air and the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand show that airplay is at 15.36 percent for the March 2000 quarter and that sales have increased to 9 percent. We congratulate the New Zealand music industry month initiative the New Zealand radio industry and the New Zealand Music Industry Commission. This Government is supporting New Zealand Music Month which is celebrating its third year this year. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have just been recalling in my mind as I notice the Minister sporting the particular T-shirt that she is that some months ago there was an outcry in this House from Labour Party members who were very upset at a similar sort of logo being displayed in relation to Mr Keith Locke. I wonder whether for the sake of consistency the Minister might be asked to remove—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been asked to do many things but nothing like that. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although the Minister’s T-shirt is bright and very beautiful and has caused some enjoyment for members of this House I consider that some of the comments made which you may not have heard were very sexist. I respectfully ask that you make some comment concerning the level of sexist reference in issues such as this. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just say that I thought the Hon Judith Tizard handled the comments very well. However I also agree with the member that we have to be careful about some of the comments that are made. A good joke is something that I crave to hear and very rarely do—over-the-top comments I more frequently hear. 
Metiria Turei 
: What if anything is the Government doing to promote local initiatives such as the Dawn Raid Community Trust which promotes education employment and social service opportunities for young Pacific peoples and teaches them about and involves them directly in the music industry? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: There are a number of initiatives like the Dawn Raid Trust and the arc trust in Dunedin that are working very hard through Creative New Zealand and the Music Industry Commission to support the new music and arts curriculum in schools. They are also being supported through many innovative councils like Manukau City Council. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. While I am happy for the issue of sexist comments to be raised I also wish to raise the issue of sexist behaviour in this House. I draw your attention to this fact. If my colleague Mr Keith Locke were to come into this House with the very same T-shirt he would be ruled out of order and asked to leave this Chamber. I am not asking that you do the same for Judith Tizard but— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. That is not a point of order. It is just wasting the time of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reconsider that comment in the light of the fact that we have a dress code and that is merely what Mr— 
Government Members 
: Aw! 
Ron Mark 
: In silence! I was thrown out for that yesterday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member rightly made a comment and I will adhere to it strictly. 
Ron Mark 
: Mr Hide quite rightly was just drawing your attention to the Standing Orders in respect of dress. In the light of the comment made by Metiria Turei who drew attention to sexist comments I feel that Mr Hide’s point of order is perfectly in order. There is a dress code that applies to the men and I now ask you whether by permitting women to come to the House in flamboyant promotional T-shirts that now means that men likewise will be permitted to stand in this Chamber and take part in debate wearing T-shirts. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: While I thoroughly endorse my colleague’s comments I also support the comments made by Rodney Hide. I draw your attention to the fact that we have had a consultation of the male members of this House with regard to dress code but if you recall the question was about whether we were permitted to remove our jackets and not whether we had to wear a collar and tie underneath them. Members have never actually been canvassed on that issue during the time that I have been a member. 
Peter Brown 
: Yes it has. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: That is not how I recall it. I ask you to consider that Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I consulted male members about their dress code which included a collar and tie and a jacket at the beginning of this Parliament and the last Parliament. Those members made the decision by quite a high majority and I accepted that quite clearly. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect to the members who have raised the matter they have not actually addressed themselves to the correct Standing Order. The correct Standing Order is Standing Order 109 “Visual aids”. There are a whole lot of Speakers’ rulings on the matter on page 48 of  
Speakers’Rulings 
. However the relevant point is—which will cause both members some embarrassment—that such an aid may be displayed only when the member is speaking to the question before the House and must be removed from the Chamber at the conclusion of the member’s speech. If the two members want to come to the House with an aid of that sort then they are bound by the Standing Orders the same as everyone else is. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I wonder what the people who are here for serious business think. What would their comments be on this continual adolescent behaviour from members opposite? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This week I have received a large number of comments from people outside this House complaining about the use of the point of order procedure. I uphold the right of members to raise points of order. I took seriously the point of order raised by the Hon Richard Prebble as he is a senior member of this House. I will reflect on it in the next little while. 
Dail Jones 
: Bearing in mind the serious nature of this House and the importance of Government members not asking Ministers patsy questions and the need for this Minister to be original— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will come to the question. He should not have a long procession of comments. 
Dail Jones 
: Is the Minister aware that she was asked an identical question on 5 September 2002 namely: “What steps has the Government taken to support the New Zealand music industry” and for how long is this House to be subjected to this Minister having the same question asked of her and this House having to put up with the same answer being given to it at considerable expense? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The music industry is a serious industry with great export and great employment potential. That is why this Government the radio industry and the music industry are putting a great deal of money and effort into promoting the New Zealand Music Month. I also point out that all members have been advised of this and I hope that I am doing my job to promote New Zealand industry particularly the music industry. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given her duty as Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage and having particular regard for culture and what that means does she think it is fit for a Minister and herself in particular to come to this House as some sort of walking emblem on a day like this? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: There is an ancient and honourable tradition of May Day being a day for political social and cultural symbols and I am very happy to participate. 
Te Mangai Paho—Contract Policy 
10.  
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Is it Te Mangai Paho’s practice to pay out money without contracts in place; if so why? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 My officials advise that no it is not Te Mangai Paho’s normal practice to pay out money without contracts being in place. When that has occurred the late signing relates either to rollover contracts with longstanding parties or to contracts awaiting Te Mangai Paho’s sign-off. In the latter case payment does not normally occur unless the contract has first been signed by the producers. 
Rodney Hide 
: In that case has the Minister seen Te Mangai Paho’s letter to Mana Maori Media Ltd dated 19 November 2002 stating: “The management and board of Te Mangai Paho have become increasingly concerned that the draft contract arrangements have not been completed” and that “Mana Maori Media Ltd have received five advanced payments each of $28695.08 from July to November 2002. Your urgent assistance to this matter is required immediately.” and can the Minister confirm that Mana Maori Media Ltd received $143475.40 of taxpayers’ money with no contract draft or otherwise that nothing has been produced and that that is literally money for nothing; is that the way Labour does business? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: No I have not seen the content of the letter and that is not how Labour does business. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: When will the independent review of Te Mangai Paho be completed? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The review is expected to be completed tomorrow and made available to the board on Monday or Tuesday. 
Katherine Rich 
: In the light of the fact that Mana Maori Media has been awarded $344000 excluding GST to produce a minimum of 10 hours of radio programming a year does he think that a potential rate of $34000 an hour for a radio programme is extravagant even by the standards of Te Mangai Paho and what is he going to do about it? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is an operational matter and I am not too sure of the hourly rates involved in this business. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can we conclude from his answer to Mr Hide that he was not aware of that letter that he is heading a ministry that has no regard for him as Minister and that it therefore denies him information that is essential for his proper performance in this House? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am more than certain that the ministry is going along with me and it is spending one of the better times it has ever had under a very good Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would now like the Minister having said that to address the particular question he was asked. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: No. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is important that we get clarification from the Minister here. He appears to be saying to the House that even though he had a question on notice about a matter involving $143000 of taxpayers’ money his officials have never told him that that money has been paid over that there is no contract and that nothing has been delivered. That is what I understand him to be saying to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member has repeated the point. The Minister does not need to stand up because he gave a direct answer: “No”. I could not ask for anything more than that. People ask for specific answers and that was a specific answer. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You may not have heard it but when the Minister gave his last reply there was a loud round of applause from the gallery. I think our Standing Orders are quite clear on that. I am not sure whether the Minister brought his cheer team here to the gallery— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I thank the member for raising that point. I heard noise coming from the gallery. I want to tell the people in the gallery that they are observers of our parliamentary democracy. They cannot participate and that is a golden rule. We occasionally allow an exception to that at the end of a particular bill being passed which we are having later today but as far as ordinary question time is concerned there are only 120 people who can participate. I thank the member for drawing my attention to that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could get the  
Hansard  
when it is eventually produced look at the answer that Mr Horomia gave and tell me how it possibly related to my question. The answer “No” cannot stand as a meaningful answer at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member is challenging my ruling. I deemed that reply to address the question; the answer certainly addressed the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: How does this Minister justify to the taxpayers of New Zealand his pay and his position when this House discovers that Te Mangai Paho which he is responsible for has paid Mana Maori Media Ltd $143475.40 without even a draft contract in place nothing has been produced and it takes the ACT party to bring that to this Minister’s attention—not the very officials who are supposed to be reporting to him? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That contract is one of several contracts. Hundreds of contracts are given out. I tell that member that my officials do a lot of good work in relation to informing me and I do earn my pay. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the people in the gallery that I do not want to have to ask them to leave. They are not to participate in proceedings. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek clarification and I ask the Minister to consider very carefully his answer. He has just told this House that there is a contract and that it is one of many contracts. The whole point of the question was that there is no contract. I would like that Minister to think seriously on his answer because it would appear he has been misleading us. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Can I go through matters carefully. Firstly it is an operational issue. Secondly I have offered—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I said there should be no comments on points of order. This is a point of order. The member is entitled to have his point of order heard in silence. The member has raised the point of order and the Minister is speaking to it. The member must not interject or he will go. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I am in the middle of hearing the Minister. 
Rodney Hide 
: He has not said “Speaking to the point of order”. He has not called “Point of order”. We had this problem earlier this week. What is the Minister doing? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Hide called for the point of order. The Hon Parekura Horomia can speak to it and I have allowed him to do so. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Speaking to the point of order I point out firstly earlier on in my reply I mentioned that it is an operational issue and secondly I do not know the detail of what that member is telling me and whether it is the truth. That is something I will find out about and relay back to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order I say that this is a debatable matter and we have already had the answer given to the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When the Minister gave the last answer to Mr Hide and referred to contracts what contracts was he referring to and if they were to do with the absence of a contract which Mr Hide mentioned in his primary question how does his answer make any sense to anybody including himself? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I was referring generally to all contracts. 
Industry Training—Labour Party Manifesto 
11.  
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What steps is the Government taking to honour Labour’s manifesto commitment to have 250000 New Zealanders involved in industry training by 2007? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 Today the Government has announced an $85 million Budget 2003 package to take the number of workers involved in industry training during 2005 to 150000. This is a significant step towards the Labour-Progressive goal of having a quarter of a million New Zealanders involved in industry training by 2007. Business New Zealand has welcomed the package and the Council of Trade Unions has called it “great news for workers”. 
Jill Pettis 
: Can the Minister advise the House further about initiatives undertaken to raise the profile of industry training within New Zealand so that we may better meet those targets? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: One crucial initiative is the partnership that has been formed between the Government the Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand. Together we will work on an $800000 campaign announced today to encourage more enterprises to join the industry training programme enabling them to produce more profitable goods and more profitable services. 
Simon Power 
: How can the Minister claim his announcement today as a success when the funding may fall from $837.38 per trainee in 2003 to $744.67 per trainee in 2005? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am not sure what the member is referring to because the standard measure of the usual form of payment for trainees during a year runs from $1700 I think from memory to about $3500. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Can the Minister confirm that unions will be represented in the governance of industry training organisations? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: We reviewed the entire industry training area last year and a document was released at that time. Legislation—the Tertiary Education Reform Bill—will ensure that will happen. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: What is the Government doing to investigate the future needs of the workforce for industry training? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: We have committed a $50000 sum to an initiative—which the Progressives I am pleased to say are enthusiastically supportive of—to develop a proposal for a national centre for education and research in the vocational area. If that proves to be a worthwhile initiative we will then fund the establishment of such a centre. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Is he concerned that the measures announced today to increase the level of industry training may be mitigated by the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill if it has the effect of causing the loss of jobs over time as suggested I notice in the explanatory note on the bill? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No I am not. The evidence worldwide is that as long as the minimum wage is set at a level that is commensurate with the ability of employers to pay there is no loss of employment. 
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome—Notifications 
12.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Have eight cases of Sars been reported to the Ministry of Health under the notifiable diseases provisions of the Health Act 1956; if so why has only one been reported to the World Health Organization? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Eight suspected cases were reported to the Ministry of Health under the Health Act. Those not reported to the World Health Organization were investigated and their symptoms excluded them from being probable severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) cases. That is called diagnosis by exclusion. It is the approach recommended by the World Health Organization in the absence of a specific diagnostic test. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: What has changed between yesterday when we had only one Sars case and today when the chairman of the Ministry of Health’s Sars technical advisory group Dr Lance Jennings said several of the cases reported since March are probably Sars cases and how is that any different from the Chinese Minister of Health suppressing information on the number of cases? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In New Zealand we use a broad definition in defining Sars for the purpose of reporting to the Ministry of Health which is useful in protecting New Zealanders from Sars because it picks up all possible cases. It is then the medical officer of health the physician who is attending the person and the technical advisory group led by Dr Lance Jennings who determine whether the cases are Sars. That technical advisory group has deemed that the cases that have come before it other than the one that we have reported were not probable cases of Sars. 
Dave Hereora 
: Who makes the decision on whether Sars cases are reported to the World Health Organization? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The independent Sars technical advisory group makes the decision in consultation with the treating physician and the medical officer of health. That group is made up of 15 eminent New Zealand specialists and experts. They make the decision independently. Not one case goes to the Minister of Heath. I have absolutely nothing to do with the decision but I have to say that the 15 experts led by Dr Lance Jennings include people like Professor Keith Grimwood Dr Rosemary Ikram and Associate Professor Stephen Chambers. I could go on. I have never received any information from that group other than what has been made available to the public. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Tony Ryall is insinuating that I was told information. That is not correct. He is accusing me of not telling the truth. That is not correct. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should not have been interjecting. He was interjecting continually. I called for order once but if the member assures me that he was not accusing the Minister of—[ 
Interruption 
] Was the member accusing the Minister of not telling the truth? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Yes I was and I withdraw and apologise. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Given the legal responsibility under the Health and Safety in Employment Act to provide employees with equipment necessary to protect them can the Minister confirm whether all front-line staff in hospitals are equipped with the masks that the World Health Organization says are essential to protect staff in close contact with Sars patients which are the masks that provide 99 percent particulate filtration not the ordinary N95 masks that were circulated recently? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member was at a briefing on Monday at which the Ministry of Health informed the members who were there that the World Health Organization recommendation was an N95 mask. They had been provided right around New Zealand to front-line staff. On that day—in fact on the evening before—the World Health Organization updated its quality of mask to an N100. The member was informed of that at that stage. While there are some N100s in New Zealand there are not stocks for everyone. People at this stage have N95s and the Ministry of Health is acquiring the N100s as fast as possible. That information came only 2 days ago. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: As it was Dr Lance Jennings who actually said that several of the cases reported since March are probably Sars cases when did she know that several of the eight notified cases were probable Sars cases and why has the public not been informed until now? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have not to this day been advised that there are eight probable Sars cases because the decision on whether a case is Sars is not made by me or the Ministry of Health but by the committee members themselves. They decide whether it meets the criteria. If there were other cases I am sure that Dr Lance Jennings a man of integrity would have reported them. He has no reason not to because it is on the heads of committee members that the decision is made. They have nothing to hide. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Does she still consider the response to the Hawke’s Bay case as excellent in the light of the facts that the contacts who travelled to China with that person have not all been contacted since returning to New Zealand and that at least one person has continued to travel around New Zealand unaware of the risks—a person whose daughter-in-law has stated she is appalled by the way that is being handled? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have been advised that one woman from that group went to Waiheke Island. Although she did not speak to the health officials herself she spoke through another person and was given all the information. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave if appropriate for the  
Hansard 
 record of the Minister of Health’s answers to question No. 12 today to be made available ideally within the hour. We know we normally have the  
Hansard 
 record by 5.30 or 6 o’clock but if we could have that part a little earlier that would be very helpful. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am pleased to inform the member it will be on the website by about 5.30 p.m. That has been so for all this session. Members are always at liberty to approach the Minister in that way but the answers will be on the website by about 5.30 p.m. It has to be sent and go through the usual processes. The time for questions has expired. I call on Government order of the day. 
Points of OrderQuestion No. 1 to Member 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; I was going to call questions to members but of course Mr Dunne is not here. As soon as he is here that will be able to be done. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I do raise this matter with you. I put down this question yesterday. We know as someone has just said this to me that Mr Dunne was at the select committee today. I have had a look at the Standing Orders to see whether one can—what is the word—transfer a question to another member and of course one can with regard to Ministers but when I look at the Standing Orders it does not appear that one can do so in the case of a question to a member. But that raises an interesting situation. This is no doubt an embarrassing question for Mr Dunne but I have put it down 2 days in a row and surely he has an obligation to this House to come here front up and tell the House why a petition signed by 25 percent of all New Zealand Chinese has not actually been considered especially since he is on record as saying we need 5 million New Zealanders in the country. One would have thought that he would actually turn up. But are you saying that Mr Dunne can in fact by absenting himself from the House every day make sure that he never has to answer this question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 127/4—a ruling from Speaker Harrison in 1978—that Standing Order 371 “does not allow another member to answer a question on behalf of a member of whom the question is asked.” Therefore the deputy chairperson of the committee cannot do it. But I think that the member has raised a very valid point of order. I will have a look at that over the weekend and I will ensure that he gets an answer on Tuesday in some way. 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In your deliberations over the weekend I ask that you possibly weigh in the balance the urgency related to this matter. I think that Peter Dunne has acted in good faith and that there is a question to be considered about whether the delay of one more day is in terms of this petition— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am not going to do that. I have told Mr Prebble that I will be looking at this matter and I do regard it as important. It is one of those things that is a new point of order and something we have not struck before. I think we therefore have to deal with it on the spot. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am confident I can suggest to you that given we now have elected deputy chairs of select committees which we did not have in the past it would seem to me one possible suggestion is that the deputy chair can answer on behalf of the chair—provided of course the deputy chair has been given the necessary information. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a very good issue for the Standing Orders Committee to consider but unfortunately that is not the current rule. However I will look at this issue over the weekend for the member. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I would like to say to the House that that is an interesting suggestion but the deputy chairman is actually Mr Graham Kelly who we all know is ill. I am not criticising him in any way but I seek leave for any member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee—because the question is to the committee—to tell the House the answer to my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let us put it this way: I would be reluctant to do that today because no other member of the committee was aware that that question would be asked in that way and therefore probably would not have the information so would be unable to answer. But does the member want leave to be put today? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I do. I think members of the committee must know the answer. I seek leave for any member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to answer my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the ACT party does not have a member on that select committee and because Government members are now denying leave it means my party does not know what is happening at that committee. I regard that as thoroughly unparliamentary. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. That is a comment made by the member.