Volume 653 Week 9 - Thursday 9 April 2009 
Volume 653 Week 9 - Thursday 9 April 2009 
[Volume:653;Page:2575] 
Thursday 9 April 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The House will adjourn at 5 p.m. today for the Easter adjournment. When it resumes on 28 April priority will be given to the Committee stage of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill the first readings listed on the Order Paper and the first readings of bills to be introduced today. On Wednesday 29 April it is anticipated that the Hon Dr Michael Cullen will have time set aside by the House for his valedictory speech. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 In light of that statement from the Leader of the House perhaps I could ask whether there is any intention to take politically non-controversial business on the evening of 29 April as some of my colleagues may not wish to participate in the events of the House. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I anticipate that at about 5.30 p.m. on 29 April there will indeed be a controversial statement delivered to the House. In fact we would be most disappointed if it did not have a degree of that attached to it. In essence I think the member can rest assured that his colleagues will be able to join him in enjoying any festivities that he may provide. Of course I warn them that former Ministers of Finance are not notorious for their generosity in these matters. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise it under Standing Order 377 “Contents of replies”. On 8 April 2009 you were good enough to write me a letter—and I am grateful for that—on the matter of a question that I had asked the Minister of Corrections in respect of how many Cabinet papers had been lodged by Cabinet committees the reply for which was that there were other avenues to obtain the information. You stated that you do not believe that such replies are acceptable and that you would be concerned if Ministers were to take the view that they could avoid their obligation to answer parliamentary questions simply because other processes to obtain information exist. Finally you said that Ministers have a responsibility to the House for the public offices they hold that they should take questions seriously and that they should endeavour to give informative replies. 
My simple request of you is—given that informative letter—whether you would consider writing to the Prime Minister to request that he write to his Ministers asking them to comply with your directive so that the question and answer process is treated with respect and not with the contempt that that Minister has shown. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable member made a perfectly fair point for a start. I do not think that the last part of that point of order was appropriate; in fact it was inappropriate. Be that as it may the honourable Leader of the House the Hon Gerry Brownlee has been working with the Business Committee on trying to resolve this issue because it is an issue of concern to the House. What has been recommended is that we allow a little bit of time to get it sorted out. There are one or two other issues around written questions as well that are not quite as straightforward as that one. I am endeavouring to make progress and if in 3 or 4 weeks’ time the member is still not happy he is welcome to raise the matter with me again. 
Questions for Oral Answer—Unauthenticated Quotations in Questions 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I also wish to raise an important point of order about your requirements of Ministers around the answering of questions. 
Yesterday you gave an additional supplementary question to Mr Mallard on the basis that I had not answered his question “Why did he tell the New Zealand Press Association that he never said Mr Judge asked him to appear?”. Mr Mallard repeated that question five times in supplementary questions and points of order demanding an answer and that was backed up by you. But the actual New Zealand Press Association quote from me was “I never said I was acting for him.” 
My substantive point is that I think that as Speaker you need to be quite cautious in insisting that Ministers must answer unauthenticated questions as Ministers have not had the opportunity to check whether they are correct. Nor is it fair for you to require Ministers to instantly be able to determine whether such a quote is correct because I do not think there would be a member in the House who could instantly recall every comment that had been publicly reported. I did address the question in answering the substantive matter of what I and Mr Judge had discussed. Given the ground that you are pushing on this matter of Ministers answering questions I think it would be helpful if over the adjournment you gave a considered ruling in respect of this issue of unauthenticated supplementary questions. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 The Minister raises an important point and one that is worthy of consideration. It seems to me that the answer lies in Ministers’ hands in that particular kind of example because it is an important example of an unauthenticated supplementary question. But if the Minister is unsure whether the question is based upon what the Minister actually said—and we all have some sympathy with the notion that one does not remember everything one has said and one can never be sure it has been reported correctly in the second instance in any case—then the Minister is open to giving an answer that is simply along the lines of: “I’m not sure I agree with the member that that is what I said. I would prefer to check the quotation before giving the answer.” That directly answers the question without getting the Minister into trouble about whether that is in fact an accurate quotation. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think that is exactly the problem that we got into yesterday. The Hon Nick Smith gave an answer. He gave effectively the only answer he could at the time knowing that the quote mentioned in the supplementary question was not quite right. Not having instant recall of the exact quote he gave an answer. It was subsequently ruled to be inadequate and an additional supplementary question was given. I think that is the problem we got into yesterday. It is quite correct for Dr Cullen to suggest that the matter is in the Minister’s hands but all that is in the Minister’s hands is the ability to give an answer. 
I accept your ruling that the idea that the word “answer” is neutral as is suggested in  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 is no longer going to stand but by the same token if a Minister does address a question does give an answer that is related to the question then it surely satisfies the test that Dr Cullen puts on it. I am sure that some consideration of this matter over the coming days would be beneficial. As you are going through the exercise of requiring Parliament to be more accountable this matter is something you might like to consider as well. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to raise briefly two points. The first I think was touched on by Dr Cullen. Following advice from I think you and me the Minister actually got it right in the end and answered in a way that was appropriate. The second point that I would make is to make it absolutely clear that I was quoting directly from the report of the New Zealand Press Association. I did not ever indicate that it was a quote from Dr Smith. I quoted directly from the report. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members thank you. I think the Hon Dr Nick Smith has raised a perfectly fair point of order. In fact yesterday members will recollect that I was troubled by that very issue of validation of alleged quotes in supplementary questions where there is no opportunity to validate them. However at the same time—and I am very happy to give it further thought—it is certainly a worthwhile point. The point Dr Cullen makes is also a very valid point—that is the Minister does have the last say. The Minister can easily say—and it is a perfectly proper answer—“I cannot recollect saying those words; they may not be correct.” That is a perfectly valid answer. 
The dilemma I get into is when the quote is totally ignored in the answer. Having said that I am very happy to give the issue further reflection because my interest in Ministers being held to account properly in this House does not hinge on that particular issue and I do not want it to become a major problem. But I do take into account all the points raised by members. I think they are all useful points. 
Chamber—Audio System 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise this issue now because the House is about to embark upon an adjournment. We are on the point of completing our first two sessions of the year with this new sound system and although I think it works particularly well in most cases some problems are becoming apparent during those times when there are heated exchanges across the House and a lot of noise. Because we no longer have our little earpieces it is often very difficult to hear the particular member who might be speaking. Speakers’ voices tend to get drowned out in a lot of extraneous noise. I wonder whether during the adjournment some consideration can be given either to repositioning microphones or to doing something with the technology to make it easier for us to hear. Over the weeks that this new system has been in place we have often lost the capacity to hear a Minister or a member asking or answering a question against a background of loud noise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member for raising the issue. It has been my observation that what tends to make hearing difficult at this end of the Chamber is a background of noise. I often find that it is not interjections that cause problems; it is private discussions around the Chamber that get quite loud and make it difficult to hear. I do not want to pursue the issue now but if other members have the same concern as the Hon Peter Dunne they should please raise them with my office. If there is a major concern we will investigate it further. 
Resignation—Member for Mt Albert 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday we heard a valedictory speech from the member for Mt Albert. The House is now going into a 2-week adjournment. Could you help the House by telling us whether you have received a letter of resignation from that member; if so what date does it take effect? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a very interesting situation whereby the Speaker is required to answer the question. Let me be cautious in case I am not aware of a letter having been received. I will just consult a little which Ministers are not allowed to do so I do seek privilege here. Unlike the situation with the Hon Dr Michael Cullen from whom I have received a letter as far I am aware—and I stress “as far as I am aware” because something may be in transit between the relevant member’s office and my office—I have not received a letter from the Rt Hon Helen Clark so I do not know exactly from which date her resignation might be effective. I trust that the honourable member will remedy that situation because I do expect to receive a letter. 
Questions to Ministers 
Unemployment—Forecasts 
1. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on unemployment forecasts? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Unemployment is clearly rising as the impact of the global downturn is felt in New Zealand. I have seen widely divergent projections of where unemployment might peak ranging from projections from Business and Economic Research Ltd which believes that unemployment will rise to double digits to projections from others who believe that it will barely rise to 5 percent. None of these forecasts is new. Since before Christmas there have been forecasts of a substantial increase in unemployment and unfortunately those forecasts are proving to be correct. Frankly the focus of the Government is not on the forecast but on taking action that will make some difference to people who may be threatened with losing their jobs. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What measures is the Government taking in the short term to lessen the impact of rising unemployment? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has taken a number of initiatives to take the sharp edges off the downturn. As of 26 March 1303 people are participating in the ReStart scheme which was announced several months ago. This scheme enables people to retain their Working for Families payments and their accommodation supplement for a period of up to 16 weeks after they become unemployed. There have also been other wider-ranging measures including a $480 million package for small and medium sized businesses and the round of tax cuts on 1 April were designed to put money in people’s pockets and prop up the economy through the recession. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What measures is the Government taking in the longer term to ensure full employment? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The one thing we need to be able to offer to those who have lost their jobs is the prospect that they will get another job back. The only way new jobs will be created coming out of this recession is if businesses are confident enough to invest in those new jobs. The Government has outlined a wide-ranging programme designed to lift our growth rate as we come out of the recession including investment in infrastructure and a wide range of regulatory changes to areas such as the Resource Management Act and the Overseas Investment Act as well as focusing on the Government running its own services much more effectively than it has in the past. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister confirm that the latest New Zealand Institute of Economic Research survey shows further deterioration with a net 36 percent of firms intending to lay off staff in the next 3 months a net 51 percent—the worst result in 30 years—reporting a decline in profitability and that Treasury has now confirmed estimates of a further 60000 unemployed by the end of this year and that that is now worse than Treasury’s previous worst-case scenario? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I have seen those forecasts about what might happen and they are all concerning although I have to say they are not a surprise. Since before Christmas when most of our trading partners went into coordinated recession there had been forecasts of rising unemployment. As a community and a country we are now facing the reality of those forecasts becoming facts and that is significant numbers of people losing their jobs. It is the Government’s intent to help cushion those people from the worst effects of the recession at the same time as gearing up this economy to come out of that recession and create new jobs. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What previous strategies to address unemployment is the Minister aware of and how successful were they? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Unemployment is not new in New Zealand. It turns out that we have just passed the 20th anniversary of a previous job summit when the then Minister of Employment Mr Goff participated in a special 1-day ministerial conference over employment. It was 20 years ago but the things he said are still relevant. Mr Goff said: “Any sector in the economy who thinks it can get better salaries without a rise in productivity ought to think again because the impact of that is to have people in jobs with high wages but a hell of a lot more people out of jobs.” I think Labour’s spokespeople could take notice of that advice. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Speaking of the Job Summit is the Minister aware of a recent ShapeNZ survey that shows that nearly two-thirds of New Zealanders regard this Government’s Job Summit as either ineffective or unproven that over 20 percent of New Zealanders believe they will lose their own jobs this year and that most New Zealanders regard the Government’s economic performance as either neutral or negative; and does he therefore agree with the well-known right-wing tip sheet  
Trans Tasman  
that says: “Some within National’s ranks”—that will be Mr Power—“fear that the party could come down with a thud as winter’s grip takes hold and unemployment climbs rapidly.” It goes on to say: “John Key and Bill English don’t appear to be singing from the same sunny song sheet.”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could both questions and answers please be a little shorter—answers too. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am not at all surprised that the Labour finance spokesperson has decided to join the chorus of negativity because that is what Labour members have always done—wrung their hands and done nothing. This is an activist Government rolling out a programme of positive initiatives. 
Ministers—Confidence 
2.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers; if so why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes because they are hard-working and competent Ministers. 
Hon Annette King 
: When does the Prime Minister lose confidence in a Minister? Would it take for example the Minister of Labour to personally support the illegal opening of businesses at Easter while at the same time saying she does not condone “sort of breaking the law” as stated on TV3 on 6 April or does he allow his Ministers to have a personal view and a ministerial view on their portfolio responsibilities? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Minister of Labour I think was expressing the same frustration that Ministers of Labour have expressed for several decades in trying to oversee our Easter trading laws. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why does the Prime Minister continue to express confidence in the Minister of Internal Affairs who has now on no fewer than four occasions failed to disclose all details of his “public-private” trip to India when just after the election the Prime Minister said that the standard he would be setting for his Ministers would be one strike and then they would be out? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has set out his expectations clearly and the Minister of Internal Affairs has taken all the steps necessary to meet those expectations. 
Hon Annette King 
: What is the Prime Minister’s response to a Minister who has preached spending restraint supported the sacking of 70 staff—throwing them on the unemployment scrap heap—then has wasted $1800 of taxpayers’ money on a helicopter ride to get an overview of a university campus which is something the Minister of Education could have got off Google? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot believe that a senior member of the Labour Party is criticising anyone about wasting public money after 10 years of Labour’s fiscal recklessness. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by his comment that the  
Cabinet Manual 
 is “only a sort of rule book”; and does that mean that he expects his Ministers to only sort of adhere to it? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It would be very difficult for the current Prime Minister to show the same flexibility of attitude to the  
Cabinet Manual 
 that the previous Prime Minister did. 
Work and Income—Treatment of Beneficiaries 
3.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How does the Government ensure that all unemployed people are treated equitably and without prejudice by different Work and Income offices? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 This Government does expect people to be treated equally and without prejudice. However each year Work and Income’s 142 offices help 1.1 million New Zealanders conduct about 1.5 million interviews and receive over 5.5 million phone calls. So unfortunately they do occasionally get it wrong. When they do I expect it to be fixed. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why were some of a group of unemployed Burmese people who were rounded up and sent to do seasonal work in Napier given a 13-week stand-down period when they walked off the job because of appalling pay and conditions when others in the same group were not given a stand-down? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I have been advised that one out of 27 of that group was given a stand-down period incorrectly. That has been fixed. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: How does the Minister expect her ministry to cope with the now forecasted further 60000 jobless people by next year given that her ministry’s chief executive officer said in the financial review of the Ministry of Social Development “We can deal with up to 60000 people on the unemployment benefit at this stage with our current level of resourcing.” or is her plan to cross her fingers hope for the best and turn a blind eye to reality like the Prime Minister who has said he thinks the 60000 figure looks too high? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Work and Income can certainly deal with the number of unemployed going up to 60000. In fact what is happening at the moment is that we have moved another 100 people on to the front line to deal with people on the unemployment benefit. I am confident that of the people walking into a Work and Income office a high percentage of them are walking out with work and that we are turning those people round. But we are well-equipped for some of the harder times ahead. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister think it is acceptable that this group of unemployed Burmese workers were obliged to accept being put up in a local hall and having to pay around $180 a week each for the privilege in some cases being left with only $20 a week to live on; if not will she do anything she can to ensure that Work and Income supplies labour only when proper wages and conditions are on offer? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It is a good question. In my understanding what happened was that an employer took these workers on and Work and Income worked in good faith with it but when the workers arrived at work their conditions had changed so Work and Income took back the workers. There was one who accidentally had a stand-down period but the others were actually put back on to a benefit straight away. We do not think it is acceptable that people be put in halls for accommodation and we will not be accepting that sort of behaviour from employers at all. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why in that situation then did Work and Income make promises of transitional support for those workers in that difficult situation and not follow through with that extra support when the workers turned up in Napier? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It is my understanding that transitional support is individual so the department did not roll it out automatically equally for all 27 people. People have different needs for clothing shoes and other things to help them in those jobs. We fronted up with Work and Income to give the workers that help. They were back at Work and Income within 2 weeks. That is my understanding but I am happy to look into that particular case further and to make sure that that information is correct. 
Sue Bradford 
: What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the kind of systemic racism that appeared to occur in this incident—whereby only Burmese people were rounded up sent to the north in this way and not offered helped with interpreters once they got into trouble with the department—does not arise again through her offices? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I absolutely do not think there was any racism going on in my department at all. I categorically say that that is not what happened. I stand up quite proudly and say that I think the staff in that department work for all New Zealanders refugees and anyone they can help and that they take great pride in that work. 
Question No. 4 to Minister 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I seek leave to hold over this question until the Minister of Maori Affairs is present in the House and able to answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action? Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Maori —Voice in Government Decision-making 
4.  
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: What steps is he taking to ensure that Maori have a voice in the Government’s decision-making processes? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Associate Minister of Maori Affairs) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: He along with all other Ministers in the Government who share this responsibility has taken great strides in ensuring that Maori have a greater voice in the Government’s decision-making processes. Great strides in this regard include receiving direct input from Maori communities Maori organisations whanau hapu and iwi and also receiving input through the ministry’s network of regional offices and through his direct contacts. On a more formal level the Minister has this year convened a Maori economic workshop to receive— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is my understanding that when a Minister is answering for another Minister as this Minister is she should be answering as he would be speaking and not referring to the Minister in the third person. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Technically I accept the convention but I think—[ 
Interruption 
] While I am ruling on a matter members will be quiet. The Minister made it clear that she was answering on behalf of the Minister of Maori Affairs and I think a little latitude is reasonable. Has the honourable Minister finished her answer? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. On a more formal level the Minister has this year convened a Maori economic workshop to receive very direct input from Maori into the Government’s responses to the current economic climate. He has convened and contributed to a range of other forums including the Drivers of Crime ministerial meeting the Prime Minister’s employment summit and the pending Treaty summit. With his colleagues he has established a consultation process for the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Across all of these processes the Maori voice is heard by the Government and it is included in and informs decision making. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Supplementary question to the real Minister of Maori Affairs: does she stand by his statement calling John Key’s decision to cut the proposed three Maori seats from the new Auckland super-council— 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think we need that member or any other member to imply that the Minister of Maori Affairs is not the real Minister of Maori Affairs. I think it is inappropriate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable Minister’s point of order is absolutely correct. The member should not be making that kind of comment when asking a question. I ask her to please just ask her supplementary question. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Does he stand by his statement calling John Key’s decision to cut the proposed three Maori seats from the new Auckland super-council as institutionalised racism; if not why not? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: The Minister stands by all the statements that he has publicly made in relation to this matter. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena tatou katoa. Does the Minister believe that the level of cooperation and consultation that he has had with colleagues is greater than that which the Ministers in the previous Labour Government had with their Maori Ministers despite those Ministers sitting round the Labour Cabinet table? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The current Minister of Maori Affairs cannot possibly be responsible for consultation that occurred under a previous Government. That question clearly has to be ruled out under all your previous rulings on these matters. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable member makes a perfectly valid point. I invite the member to rephrase his question to bring it within the Standing Orders. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does the Minister believe that the level of cooperation and consultation in decision-making processes that he has had with his colleagues is greater than that which Maori Ministers in the previous Labour Government may have had with other Ministers despite those Maori Ministers sitting round the Cabinet table? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That question actually has not got round the issue and obviously it is factually impossible for the Minister to answer it. I am quite sure that the previous Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia played a far greater role round the Cabinet table than the current Minister of Maori Affairs could physically possibly do. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Mr Speaker in the past you have ruled about the issue of questions asking whether a Minister has a belief with wording such as “What reports does a Minister believe …” and questions seeking a comment or an opinion. In this particular case the question is seeking an opinion about issues of decision making that come from the initial question as well as about those sitting round the Cabinet table. In other words—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Thank you Dr Cullen for those efforts. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: The question I raised was about the decision-making process of Government and about the table that the Ministers sit at. I am trying to work out the complication in respect of the question because it was clearly within those ambits. First it was about the decision-making processes. Second it was about where decision making is done in respect of the Government—at the Cabinet table. Surely the question addresses both of those points in particular for this Minister to answer. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think the problem for the member is that he is stuck on the horns of an impossible dilemma. If he is asking a question about the role of the Minister of Maori Affairs and the level of consultation then in any case it would be impossible for any Minister sitting outside Cabinet to claim that he or she has had more consultation than a Minister who sits inside Cabinet. If the member is asking a question about the role of a co-leader of the Maori Party then I think we have by now established without any shred of doubt that there can be no ministerial responsibility for or questions about the role of a co-leader of the Maori Party in terms of consultations with the current Government. That is not a matter of ministerial responsibility except of course for the Prime Minister potentially. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members for their contributions because it is a serious issue. Questions should relate to ministerial responsibility and objection has been raised to this particular question. Te Ururoa Flavell is correct of course in that questions seeking opinions can be asked under today’s Standing Orders. However the dilemma for the member is that the Minister to whom he is addressing the question is not responsible for relationships that might have existed under the previous Government. If the member wishes to ask a question that seeks an opinion the question cannot include matters relating to relationships that might have existed in the previous Government because the current Minister is not responsible for that in any shape or form. I realise this is fairly tricky ground so I invite the member to have one last go at asking a supplementary question because I do not want to deprive him of the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. But it does need to come within the Standing Orders. I am sure members will be listening carefully. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It might help the member perhaps if the question was phrased: “Has the Minister had an unprecedented level of input into Government decision-making?”. That would be a legitimate question and we would be interested in the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member for his advice. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does the Minister believe that the level of cooperation and consultation amongst the current Government is of a level that he is happy with or does it exceed his expectations? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: The Minister of Maori Affairs is exceedingly satisfied with the level of cooperation between him and other Ministers of the Government. He is very confident that the views he puts forward in a number of forums are heard and listened to. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: In light of that answer does the Minister stand by his statement that there is a tussle between the Government and Maori rangatiratanga and when there is a clash the Government wins and throws out rangatiratanga even though the Minister did a deal with the National-led Government and sits on the Government benches while the National Government is throwing out Maori rangatiratanga? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: The Minister stands by everything he has said publicly. In answer to that question there can be no better reply than the Minister’s statement in reply to a question in this House yesterday: “The agreement that the Maori Party has with National is totally mana-enhancing. We agree to disagree and to not talk behind each other’s backs.” [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I will continue the quote from the Minister from yesterday: “We have an open honest policy. We agree to disagree. We have done that and at all times there are no surprises and that is why our relationship is growing stronger every day.” 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Does the Minister agree that the so-called mana-enhancing relationship between him and the Government is a farce when the Government has clearly refused to listen to the views of him and his party on the 90-day fire-at-will Act the minimum wage the foreshore and seabed and now representation on the Auckland super-council; if so when will he realise that the only mana he is enhancing is National’s? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: The answer to the first of the several questions that were asked is no. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Does the Minister accept that given that the Maori Party’s views on Auckland representation have been rejected but the Government has supported the provision of more money for the Maori Party MPs the public might be forgiven for thinking that this arrangement is more about enhancing money for the Maori Party than enhancing mana for Maori? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: No. 
Corrections Department—Relationship with Parole Board 
5.  
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What changes if any are proposed to the working relationship between the Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Parole Board? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I am pleased to advise that since March in addition to uniformed staff our prison unit managers now attend Parole Board hearings for prisoners. This was a pre-election commitment to ensure that the Parole Board hears all relevant information about prisoners’ behaviour during their time in custody. I am pleased that it has been implemented so quickly. 
Sandra Goudie 
: How is this different from what occurred previously? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: In the past a corrections officer could attend a hearing with a prisoner even if he or she was not familiar with that prisoner or his or her behaviour. Now the responsibility is at unit manager level and those managers will attend hearings with prisoners from their own units—prisoners that they know well. This simple and sensible change will go a long way towards ensuring that the Parole Board has all the information it needs to accurately assess the risk of an offender. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Does the Minister believe that this change will improve public safety? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes. Gaps in communication represent a significant risk to public safety as we saw when the Parole Board freed Graeme Burton because it did not hear all the relevant information. This common-sense change reduces the likelihood of the type of communication breakdown that occurred when Burton was granted parole and I am surprised that the previous Minister of Corrections Phil Goff did not implement this change. 
David Garrett 
: What assurance will the Minister provide that prison officers and unit managers who tell the truth about scumbag prisoners will be protected from potential legal action brought by or on behalf of such persons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That question actually highlights that this is a very serious issue and one that the Opposition obviously does not think is serious. Our prison officers deal with 8500 of the most dangerous people in New Zealand and every day their lives and the lives of their families are at risk. It is something that the Opposition should consider when it laughs all the way through that question. One of the steps I think that we have taken is that I have made it very plain to the management of the Department of Corrections that I expect that staff safety must be a priority and that any actions that are taken to threaten our staff will be met in kind. 
David Garrett 
: If parole is a privilege and not a right does the Minister agree that a prisoner’s right to privacy must be reassessed especially with regard to information about prisoners and their conduct being placed before the Parole Board; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I do not have the responsibility for the Parole Board but certainly in relation to the Department of Corrections I am fully of the opinion that the department should provide the Parole Board with all relevant information relating to the prisoner the likely risk of reoffending and the threat to the community. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: In light of that answer which is correct: the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet which has the New Zealand Parole Board listed—and I have a copy of the document here—under the ministerial responsibilities of the Minister of Corrections; or the Minister herself who said in response to question for written answer No. 1385 in 2009 and she has reiterated it now that she is not responsible for the New Zealand Parole Board? I am reliant on documents that I have here; perhaps she may wish to do her homework. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: My information is that I am correct and the Minister of Justice seems to be indicating accordingly. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have checked the delegation list and I have in front of me a document I have printed off today of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s list of ministerial portfolios for corrections where it lists joint responsibility for the Parole Act between justice and corrections. But it lists clearly: “Ministerial Portfolios - Corrections Minister—Minister of Corrections … Other Organisations—New Zealand Parole Board”. You have said very clearly that you have to take a Minister’s word in respect— 
Hon Member 
: Oh come on! 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I am making a serious point. You have said very clearly that you have to take a Minister’s word as to whether he or she is responsible in respect of questions about ministerial responsibility. That is the first document. The second document is the answer I quoted stating “I do not have the responsibility for the Parole Board” so could we have some assistance? 
Hon Simon Power 
: I think I am correct in saying that the member may find that Vote Corrections provides the funding for the administration of the Parole Board and I may have responsibility for the Parole Act in that sense. I think it is pretty unclear though. The Parole Board itself as an independent entity may report to the Minister of Justice but I am not sure that it is right to say that any Minister specifically has responsibility for the board. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That is not actually the issue. The issue is that we have two responses. We have a response on the one hand and reiterated in this House that the Minister is not responsible—and the Government is responsible for telling us which of its Ministers is responsible I would have thought—and we have a document from the Government’s own Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that lists responsibility for the New Zealand Parole Board as being with the Minister of Corrections. If the information is incorrect and there is a mistake then it is up to the Government to correct that. But how are we expected to take the Minister at her word? Which word should we take; which document should we believe? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is not the role of the Speaker to sort out such matters of ministerial responsibility and neither is it the proper process in this House. If the member is concerned about that matter he should pursue it with the Government to further elucidate who is responsible. But as Speaker I cannot adjudicate on these matters. I have no way of knowing which Minister is responsible in my role of Speaker. If the member believes the House is being misled there are avenues available for him to pursue that but I do not believe we can litigate the matter in this manner in the House right now. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Get a life! 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Points of order are to be taken in silence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me hear the point of order. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I make this point to you. You have said quite rightly that you have to accept a Minister’s word about the responsibilities he or she does or does not have. My question is simply to ask which word of the Minister of Corrections we are to believe. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I do not think that I can be responsible for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet but I have already said the information that I have been provided is that the Parole Board is not something for which I am actually responsible. I am certainly responsible for information that the Department of Corrections provides to it—I have made that plain. If there is an error then I am happy to correct it but I am not responsible under any circumstances for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. 
Waterview Connection—Progress 
6.  
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What is the current status of the State Highway 20 Waterview Connection project? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Following the release of the Waterview Connection business case commissioned by the previous Government showing a cost of $2.77 billion including funding costs for a two by two - lane tunnel option I have asked officials to investigate alternatives to the proposed tunnel option. I have received some information from officials and I am seeking further information at the moment. I expect to be able to make an announcement of the Government’s view on this issue in the next few weeks. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Does he prefer a surface road or a tunnel option for the Waterview Connection? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As I have previously said in this House I prefer a cost-effective option for completing the very important State Highway 20 Waterview Connection. I have received some information from officials that will help me evaluate the options and I am seeking further information as I said in the previous answer. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Why is the Government so concerned about the cost of completing the Waterview Connection? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The business case report commissioned by the previous Government provided a cost estimate including finance costs of up to $2.77 billion for Labour’s preferred two-lane bored tunnel option. In anybody’s language that is a huge amount of money for a 4.5 kilometre road. The business case further advised that if the project was to be paid for by for example a property tax that tax would cost $460 for every dwelling in Auckland for 35 years. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Can the Minister of Transport tell the House what of his actions lead the Auckland City Council transport chairman to say that the Government was disingenuously lumping in a lot of costs on the tunnel option that were not there before? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As I have previously advised that member the business case I quoted from was prepared for the previous Government which called for it from the Cabinet business committee on 18 August 2008. The business case refers to the finance costs during the construction period of the project because a project of that magnitude could not be completed from the National Land Transport Fund and would need to be financed. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Why does the Minister not just tell the people of Mount Albert that he is planning to slash and burn hundreds of homes in that community to build a surface road to complete the Waterview Connection? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: That member is a victim of hyperbole. I do not propose to slash and burn anything. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Minister put the Waterview Connection project at the back of the funding queue given the huge expense—whether it be the $2.7 billion for the tunnel as Labour seems to advocate or almost the same amount for an overground version—given its extremely low benefit-cost ratio of 1:0 and the urgent need for more investment in Auckland’s public transport? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I absolutely agree with the member that there is an urgent need for investment in Auckland’s public transport and as he knows the Government has made commitments to fund that major capital investment in Auckland which is to the order of $1.6 billion. In relation to this project the completion of State Highway 20 and the western ring route of Auckland it is a very very important project; however I share his concern about the benefit-cost ratio of 1:0 and I await further information as to whether there is a more cost-effective way in which the project can be completed. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a letter from Transit—now the New Zealand Transport Agency—dated 16 July 2008 showing the benefit-cost ratio to be a very low 1:0. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Parents Working—Government Initiatives 
7.  
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is the Government doing to support working parents? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am pleased to say that this Government is taking another step towards helping hard-working parents who are juggling jobs and looking after their children. We are funding some new programmes to give hundreds of families a break in the school holidays that start tomorrow. We are providing more than $100000 just for extra places on a few Blue Light for kids programmes in rural parts of the North Island many in the South Island and in the central North Island. I know better than most what happens when idle children have too much time and not enough supervision in holiday periods. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Is the Government providing any further additional support for youth services? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes we are. Altogether just for the Easter school holidays we are making about $450000 available for 15 youth services projects around the country. As well as those school holidays programmes there is support for mentoring programmes youth community facilities outdoor recreation and evening recreation activities. We know that prevention is better in the end. I bumped into an Opposition colleague at the airport and it was especially pleasing to get talking about one of those services in Mangere and about how we could support it during the Easter school holidays. The service will be providing 500 places in a holiday programme for 5 to 16-year-olds. That is a positive thing. 
Education—National Standards 
8.  
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does she stand by her statement in relation to national standards “I want it done in a responsible way that doesn’t lead to league tables”? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes and can I say that I am glad that the member has finally convinced his colleagues to let him have a primary question after more than 5 weeks in the wilderness. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Well at least I was not helicoptering around the country! How does she reconcile the previous statement promising that national standards would not lead to league tables with her statement in the Christchurch  
Press 
 on Tuesday under the front-page headline “Govt to fast-track school league tables” where she said: “Personally I think the more information that’s out there the better.”? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I remind the member that better achievement information helps teachers and parents to support students. It helps schools to support their teachers and it helps the Ministry of Education to support schools. I also remind him that the information that we gather from the national standards policy will be very important to lift achievement levels in reading writing and maths for young New Zealand children. I tell Mr Carter that it is all about achievement for those children. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister a simple question about how she could reconcile her contradictory statements where on the one hand she said she is for league tables and on the other hand she said she is not. She did not seem to address that question at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows he did not exactly ask that question. He referred to quotes and they were picked up on. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What evidence has she seen to suggest that a national standards policy is needed? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have seen a large amount of evidence to suggest that this policy is needed. The latest Progress in International Reading Literacy Study survey found that the average reading literacy score for New Zealand in statistical terms did not change from 2001-05. That means that our youngest New Zealanders’ literacy levels did not improve under the Labour Government’s watch. That is why overwhelming numbers of parents in November last year voted for a party that believes in standards for literacy and numeracy believes in giving parents plain-language reports of their children’s progress and believes in ensuring that all schools carry out best-practice formative assessment. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Will the Minister guarantee that national standards will not lead to performance-based pay for teachers? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: We have no plans to use national standards for performance pay for teachers. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What reports has she seen on the way that schools use achievement data to help their students? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have seen a report that suggests that a number of schools are using formative assessment and the data produced by it to help their students. For those schools the national standards policy will complement the excellent work they are already doing. The same report from the Education Review Office states that 56 percent of schools were not using worthwhile achievement data. The national standards policy is about ensuring that those schools do use good assessment practices to help our young New Zealanders to read write and do maths at a much higher level than they do at present. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: How can the Minister reconcile her statement in December when she said she was opposed to league tables for primary schools with her statement in the Christchurch  
Press 
 of this week where she says she is in favour of them? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Firstly I did not say in the Christchurch  
Press 
 that I had a favourite. I want to make it very clear to that member that the Ministry of Education will not be publishing league tables. I will say that again to the member. The ministry will not be publishing league tables. This Government will be using the information that we gather from the national standards policy in a responsible way to help to lift the literacy and numeracy standards of young New Zealand children. That is what this policy is about. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: What work if any has she asked her ministry to undertake to prevent the information on school performance that is to be held by the ministry being used for the production of league tables; and will she give an assurance that before she announces the standards for literacy and numeracy there will be safeguards in place to prevent the misuse of such information? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I am very interested in discussing with the sector as part of the national standards consultation process how we can ensure that the information gathered by all those involved in the process—teachers parents principals and the ministry—is used in a responsible manner. Labour Party members cannot have it both ways. If we do things without consulting Labour accuses us regarding that but if we do consult Labour complains that we have not made a decision. I have said all along that we are going to consult with the sector about national standards and how they will be implemented and that is what we are doing. 
Wellington—Memorial Park Development 
9.  
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: What is the Government doing to develop Memorial Park in Wellington? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 The Government is committed to developing Memorial Park but we need to ensure the design for the park will be one that meets the needs of the country the city and the local community. Planning work is under way to tidy up the site in the interim. Work is required because the previous administration provided no detailed costings for its preferred option and made no provision in Vote Arts Culture and Heritage for ongoing maintenance of the work. This is yet another example of the previous Government’s phantasmagoria that was not properly costed. 
Hekia Parata 
: Was the plan for Memorial Park inherited from the previous Government fully funded? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The previous Government allocated money for the project in 2003 but took no account of increased costs or the passage of time while taking 5 years to flounder about on the issue. No detailed costings were provided and no provision was made in Vote Arts Culture and Heritage for ongoing maintenance of the work. 
Hon Annette King 
: Tell the truth! The member didn’t want the project because he didn’t want Helen Clark’s legacy. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I say to the member for Rongotai who is chirping away that I see she voiced concerns about the future of the park which took me by surprise given that no one in Rongotai has heard anything from her since the election. One can only assume she is busy on her mayoralty campaign and as mayor she will be grateful that this Government— 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am surprised that you have allowed that answer because that Minister has no responsibility for me. He certainly would not ever be my campaign manager for any campaign because he cannot get his facts straight. The first person to become the Mayor of Wellington will be him because he will not be here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have allowed the member to redress the situation that has occurred but members should just settle down a bit and come to the next supplementary question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During Annette King’s point of order before she made any controversial comments at all there was barracking from at least three separate—[ 
Interruption 
]—there it is again. There was barracking from at least three separate National members. I think it is very important if we are to have some of the decorum that you wish to have in this House that people do not barrack during points of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a perfectly good point— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I think the speaker system lets us down but the point is that it would be relevant if the Hon Annette King had called to the attention of the House a point of order. Rather than doing that she simply announced she was not standing for the Wellington mayoralty. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Things did get disorderly there but we should go back quite a few paces. There was a lot of interjection while the Minister was answering the question. The Minister picked up on that interjection and maybe in his answer he took his response to the interjections a little further than he should have. The Hon Annette King got to her feet on a point of order and there was noise. That was why I got to my feet to quieten the House down so that we could hear the point the honourable member was making. It is highly debatable whether that was a real point of order but I allowed it because I felt there was some transgression by the honourable Minister. I think the House has now settled down and I do not think there is any point in pursuing this further. The Hon Trevor Mallard makes a perfectly good point that the House should hear points of order in silence. I like the place being robust; I like this House being passionate because people believe in what they are doing here; but when the noise level gets so loud it is hard to hear and that has been the case today. 
Grant Robertson 
: When will the Minister honour New Zealand servicemen and servicewomen and their families and get on with implementing the design for Memorial Park which is well advanced or is he just more interested in playing petty political games? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The member obviously did not hear the answer to the first question. I am keen to get on with development. But I must say that I am surprised that the member who is Labour’s associate arts spokesman—at least until Judith returns at the end of the month—had the temerity to ask me a question on the subject because I saw a report last week in which he was criticising me over the Memorial Park issue yet I understand if we are talking about petty politics that when he was the candidate for Wellington Central he argued in favour of the school having some say but was overruled by the previous leader of the Labour Party. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not see any relevance in the end of that answer from Mr Finlayson. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I say to the honourable member very politely that when he builds into his question an allegation of a Minister playing petty political games he will get a political dump in an answer. The solution to the problem lies in the member’s own hands in the way he asks the question. If he asks a straight question I will not let the Minister dump on him politically. But if he asks a political question then he will get a political dump. 
Hekia Parata 
: How has this Government’s approach differed from that of the previous Government? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Unlike the previous elitist Government this Government is not ignoring local community groups and is not ignoring the well-being of the children who attend Mt Cook School. That is why I—[ 
Interruption 
] I do wish the Labour Opposition would listen carefully. That is why I have spoken with representatives of the school about the children becoming guardians of the park and how that might actually work. Next week I am going to meet with a community group to ensure that the interests of the people of Wellington are not trampled on or ignored as that previous elitist Government did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the honourable Minister that in the interests of good order in the House I have just pointed out that where a straight question is asked as Hekia Parata asked there is no need for a political broadside at the other side of the House. I do not consider that was helpful to good order. In fact I invite the member to reflect on how the way he went about answering that question assisted the good order of the House. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Will the Minister put aside history and pay due respect to the veteran community and those who are memorialised by the National War Memorial and announce to the country when plans and money are being put aside for the completion of a war memorial that is long overdue? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Of course respect will be shown and that is why the job will be done properly. We are not going to go on in some half-baked way like the previous Government did. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 I apologise but I have some documents I would like to table in relation to the questions I was asking the Minister of Education. I would have intervened but I did not want to interrupt the rather robust— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will just proceed with his seeking of leave. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: My first document is a statement from the New Zealand Principals Federation outlining its concerns that the Minister of Education is seeking to implement national standards which will result in schools being compared in the press. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is it a newspaper clipping? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No it is not. It is a statement from the New Zealand Principals Federation. The member was obviously not listening. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker will deal with these matters. The document seems like a genuine document from the New Zealand Principals Federation. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The second document is from the Canterbury Primary Principals Association dated 7 April which states: “Flawed National Standards proposal ignores teaching and learning”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The third and last document is a letter from Philip Harding the principal of Paparoa Street School in Papanui outlining his deep concerns about Mrs Tolley’s lack of understanding of these issues. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Auckland—Local Government Reform Consultation 
10.  
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: What opportunities will he make available to the people of Auckland to be consulted over the Government’s decisions about Auckland local government reform? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 The people of Auckland have been consulted and they will be further consulted. The people of Auckland have made their views crystal clear. The Government has listened and accordingly has provided for one mayor and one council for Auckland while ensuring what is important for Aucklanders—their local representation through local boards. The people of Auckland will also have the opportunity to participate in the select committee process later this year. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Does he agree with Tony McGowan of Community Waitakere that the Government’s “take it or leave it” attitude was incredibly arrogant and that in 2 days the Government has overturned a decision that took a year millions of dollars and 3500 submissions to make; if not why not? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No I do not which should not come as a surprise to that member. The Government has consulted through the royal commission process since receiving the royal commission report. That is why we listened to Auckland and provided for local representation. The Government will consult through the website www.Auckland.govt.nz which has had over 10000 visits and over 25000 page views in the past 48 hours. The Government will be consulting through the transition process and indeed through the select committee process. What I will say though is that this is a Government that consults listens then makes decisions and most important for Auckland acts—something that the previous Government never did. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: How can the Minister maintain his positive disposition and belief that Maori will gain from the local government reform when Dr Sharples’ office is organising a hikoi and a report from the Maori Party identifies the situation as hiding racism and states that there ain’t a dog’s show of Maori getting a favourable result from any poll? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I am a lot more optimistic than the member Shane Jones who demonstrably cannot get elected—demonstrably cannot get elected. It is my job as Minister of Local Government to ensure good government at the local level around New Zealand especially in Auckland. To have good government we need the input of Maori and I want to say here publicly that the Prime Minister has directed me to engage with Maori to involve Maori in the decision making and also to encourage Maori to stand for the council in Auckland and for the local boards. Unlike Shane Jones I believe that there are Maori who can stand and that Auckland will vote for them. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Does the Minister agree with the Auckland mayor John Banks that “Low-level unseemly sort of seagull behaviour and rain-dancing never helps in the process.” and “If these people think that by jumping up and down as a small minority group they are going to bully Rodney and his coalition Government they’re mistaken.”; and are these comments not representative of his attitude and the Government’s broader attitude to Maoridom in general? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: This Government has listened to Auckland and has consulted. It has then made the all-important decisions for Auckland and is acting on them. This Government is committed to engaging with the civic and city leaders of Auckland and more particularly with Maori interests and with the many diverse ethnic and cultural interests across Auckland. But members should bear in mind that Auckland governance is broken; it needs fixing. This is the Government that will do it. 
Question No. 2 to Minister 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a very serious point of order because a ministerial position could well hang on it. I seek leave to table page 937 of the  
Ministerial Office Handbook 
 July 2008. I accept that this is a document that is available but because I am going to quote from it I want it available to the person speaking for the Prime Minister so that he knows that the quote is accurate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table this document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Bill English 
: He cannot get up and give a debating speech when he is seeking leave so there is objection. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I understand the way matters evolved there the member took a point of order to seek leave to table a document. At the time we were in the process of moving on to question No. 11 and he interrupted that—which he is perfectly entitled to do—under a point of order to seek leave to table a document. Objection was voiced when I sought leave so that is the end of that matter. 
Small and Medium Sized Businesses—Government Assistance 
11.  
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What reports has he received on the Government’s initiatives to assist small and medium sized businesses? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I have of course seen reports relating to the Government’s February announcement of a suite of measures to support small business. The measures include 11 tax changes worth some $480 million an expansion of the export credit scheme extended jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal expansion of business advice services and prompt repayment requirements for Government agencies. These changes are designed to try to help small business through what are very difficult times. By way of just a couple of examples I tell members that the package was called a brilliant start by the Motel Association of New Zealand and Claire Massey the director of the New Zealand Centre for SME Research said that the package was sending the right signal that the Government was listening and that it was here to help during a difficult time. 
Todd McClay 
: Has the Minister received any reports from chambers of commerce about the Government’s initiatives; if so what do they say? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Throughout the country chambers of commerce have expressed their approval of the package. The Auckland Chamber of Commerce for example described it as a welcome investment in the small business sector. The Rotorua Chamber of Commerce an organisation the member will be familiar with welcomed the initiatives and indeed hosted about 320 people at a function recently to hear the Prime Minister talk about the Government’s small business package. This organisation thought that it should balance things up and therefore agreed to host a function with the Hon Phil Goff in which he was to outline Labour’s objections to the proposed assistance to small businesses. I am delighted to report that only four tickets were sold to that function. One of them was purchased by Steve Chadwick and therefore there was some uncertainty that it was ever paid for and ultimately Mr Goff’s function was cancelled. 
Hon Members 
: This is a speech! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members are taking a lot of time in question time today; questions have been long and answers have been very long. I do not blame members for interjections that ask whether the answer was a speech. 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Earlier today the Hon Clayton Cosgrove raised a question regarding responsibility for the Parole Board and I undertook to advise whether there was in fact an issue. I can refer the member and the House to the answer to written question No. 1996 (2007) from the Minister of Corrections the Hon Phil Goff in which he said “The information you have requested is the responsibility of the New Zealand Parole Board an independent statutory body for whom there is no ministerial responsibility.” So I tell Mr Cosgrove to get his facts right! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not going to hear any more on this. I allowed the Minister to make that point of order but this is not a matter for the House now. I make that very clear to members and if the honourable member is seeking to—[ 
Interruption 
] Will the Hon Steve Chadwick please—please—allow the fact that we are hearing a point of order? I realise she was not the only one. This matter cannot be debated further in the House now because it is not a matter for the House to resolve. As Speaker I can deliberate only on matters of order for the House. The background to ministerial responsibility is not a matter for the House now. The matter can be pursued with the Government through other means but I would like the House to proceed if possible with question No. 12. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given the tongue-lashing given at the back end of that point of order I feel is it appropriate that I respond. I simply ask this question. Given that we are quoting from the Cabinet Office documentation provided not by Phil Goff’s Government or any other Government but by this Government given that that is what the documentation says and given that in the answer to me to written question No. 01385 the Minister makes no reference to the point she has made in one of her usual slipshod answers— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat right at this moment. [ 
Interruption 
] He will sit down right now. We will hear no more on this. The process of points of order will not be abused in that manner. I realise— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: She did! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to reflect on what he has just done. I am on my feet he has interjected and he should reflect on why I do not throw him out for the rest of the day. I am not going to because I want him to sit there and think about just how foolish he has been. He can laugh if he likes but I am deadly serious. If the member does that again he will be out not just for question time but for the rest of the day. That will apply to any member. Now I want a little order to come into the proceedings. I realise that is the last day in the session and that school holidays are starting but we are not school children in this Chamber. 
Ministers—Confidence 
12.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers; if so why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes because they are all hard-working and competent Ministers. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister for ACC given the clear inconsistencies in the explanations he has given and those provided by the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in relation to the circumstances that led to the Minister’s attendance at the committee on 12 March? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I am impressed that the Minister went along to the select committee. When I was in Opposition and on a select committee it was very difficult to get Ministers to come to it. Labour seems to object when Ministers go to select committees. 
Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Ministers have to have some relationship with the truth. I invite the member to give a single example of when I was invited— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When I am on my feet Dr Cullen the member will resume his seat. It was pointed out the other day that in fact refuting an answer is not allowable through a point of order. It is not allowable for the member to do that. The member can ask a supplementary question that challenges what the Minister has said. If the member feels that what the Minister has said is a personal reflection then there is a Standing Order that will enable the Minister to have a statement withdrawn but he cannot use a point of order to question an answer. That option is simply not provided for—for good reason. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have repeated yesterday’s error if I may say so by actually misunderstanding the point of order. What I am objecting to is the content of an answer that is likely to lead to disorder because it is so offensive. If it is offensive and exception is taken to it it is a matter of order. To pretend that the Minister who was most related to that Minister when he was in Opposition refused to attend the Finance and Expenditure Committee is a lie. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat right now. The Hon Dr Michael Cullen knows the Standing Orders better than anyone else. Is he raising with me under Standing Order 116 the fact that he feels that a personal reflection was cast on him by that answer? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I will make a personal explanation if that is what you want. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is that the point of order the member is making? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: What do you want to do? I will do it that way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am trying to assist the member because there are not many options. He is either under Standing Order 116 making a point of order that a personal reflection has been made on him personally or—[ 
Interruption 
] I have asked for order. This is a serious matter because I am dealing with a very senior member of the House in his last days. I will not tolerate my rulings being questioned here. I do not care who is questioning them. This House has wasted enough time today. Either he is seeking under Standing Order 116 to have the comment withdrawn because he feels that it has cast an aspersion on him personally—and if that is the case then I ask the Minister to withdraw the comment because a personal affront has been taken— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am dealing with a point of order. Personal offence has been taken. I ask the Minister to withdraw the comment. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I withdraw it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the Minister of Internal Affairs breach the rules set out in the  
Ministerial Office Handbook 
 which state clearly: “If the travel is private then a standard passport must be used.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has set out his expectations clearly and the Minister of Internal Affairs has taken all steps to meet those expectations. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table a Cabinet minute dated 1984 that makes it abundantly clear that Ministers can be facilitated on whatever passports through the Visits and Ceremonial Office. That has been the practice since 1984 for both public and private travel. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask whether you have ruled that the answer that was given by the Minister—or the words uttered by the Minister—was an answer to the question which was a very simple question around whether the Minister breached the rules set out in the  
Ministerial Office Handbook 
? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member still has a number of supplementary questions available to him. I invite him to pursue his point first with the Minister. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the Minister of Internal Affairs breach the rules set out in the  
Ministerial Office Handbook 
—which was issued in July 2008—which state clearly: “If the travel is private then a standard passport must be used.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I will just repeat the answer to the previous question. The Prime Minister has made his expectations clear that Ministers are to conform with all rules and expectations of a Cabinet Minister and the Minister of Internal Affairs has taken all steps necessary to conform with those rules. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How can the Minister of Internal Affairs have taken all steps necessary when yesterday he told the House that he used his diplomatic passport for a business trip—not even a private trip but a business trip—when the rules state that if the travel is private then a standard passport must be used? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: My understanding is that the Minister of Internal Affairs has taken all steps necessary to ensure that his behaviour conforms with the rules. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the Minister of Internal Affairs breach the rules set out in the  
Ministerial Office Handbook 
 which state clearly: “If the travel is private then a standard passport must be used.”; if so how can the Prime Minister have confidence in a Minister who is himself responsible for the different types of passports? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister is satisfied that the Minister of Internal Affairs has taken all steps to ensure that he conforms with the rules that are expected of Ministers. As the member will know there are a significant number of those rules and expectations and the Minister of Internal Affairs has taken steps to make sure he conforms with all of them. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the Minister of Internal Affairs breach the rules set out in the  
Ministerial Office Handbook 
 which state clearly: “If the travel is private then a standard passport must be used.”; if he did breach those rules given the fact that he has had three warnings already and that he told the House yesterday that he used his diplomatic passport how can he possibly continue as a Minister and the Government pretend to have integrity? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is the obligation of Ministers to make sure they conform with all the rules that apply. It is their obligation to make sure that they know what those rules are that they comply with those rules and if by some event they do not comply with them that they fix the problem. 
Questions to Members 
Accident Compensation Corporation—2007-08 Financial Review 
1. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: On what day did he first learn that John Judge would not be available to attend the financial review of ACC for the 2007-08 year held on 12 March 2009? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) 
: 
 I did not invite Mr Judge to attend so it is not a matter of whether he was available to attend. Mr Judge made it quite clear at the select committee on 2 April as to his availability. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did he know that Mr Judge would not be attending the committee before Dr Nick Smith told him this on Tuesday 10 March? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Mr Judge was not invited by me or I had no knowledge of his being invited on behalf of the select committee to attend that meeting. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did he know that Mr Judge would not be attending before Dr Smith told him that on Tuesday 10 March? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I did not ask or invite Mr Judge to attend that meeting and I did not understand that anyone on behalf of the select committee had asked him so the matter of his attendance is not something I should know. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did he know that Mr Judge would not be attending before Dr Smith told him that on Tuesday 10 March? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are running through quite a large number of supplementary questions questioning a chairman of a select committee. I refer you to several Speakers’ rulings on page 149 of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. While answers to questions are steadily being rewritten as we progress it appears now that the standard for chairpersons’ answering of questions is also changing. Speakers’ rulings 149/2 149/3 149/4 149/5 and 149/6 relate to what can be asked of a select committee chair. I do not believe that the opportunity exists for Parliament to interrogate a chair about matters that are ancillary to the actual proceedings of a select committee and that is where we are at. We have put up with it for some days because there was no problem and we have wanted people to let off a bit of steam. But when it becomes the same question over and over and answers are given that relate to the responsibility of the chair relating to procedures of the committee itself then I think we start to move into new territory which I think is pretty dangerous— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need to hear any more on this matter. The dilemma is this. The chair of the committee must know the answer to that first question; there is no way that the chair cannot know the answer. It is a matter of the proceedings of the committee. It is totally within the Standing Orders that the chair of the committee can be questioned on that matter. The question has been on notice as to what day did he first learn that John Judge would not be attending. It may have been the day of the meeting. It may have been when Dr Smith arrived at the meeting. 
I do not know the answer but what I do know is that if a question is put down on notice it is not good enough for this House to not be told the truth. I do not know what the truth is but I allowed further supplementary questions because there was a very clear question the answer to which must be known but it was not answered. It relates to the proceedings of a select committee—an important matter a financial review. All that is needed to save further questions is for the question to be answered and the answer must be known. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If someone were to ask you for example—if a forum existed for that—“Did you know that the Prime Minister of Great Britain will not be sitting on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association benches during its session in the House next week?”—your response obviously would be: “I never invited the Prime Minister so I did not know that.” Quite clearly that is where we are at with this question. How does a chair of a select committee answer within the ambit of what may be asked of a select committee chair without in fact opening up Parliament to quite a degree of scrutiny and harassment? For someone to suggest that the chair is not being truthful—particularly if the Speaker were to suggest that the chair was not being truthful—is a pretty serious allegation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If that impression was given I apologise for that. I apologise to the honourable member because I did not mean to do that. My problem is that chairs of select committees are accountable to this House. They occupy an important role in this Parliament. A question has been laid down that is very clear. It is not a matter of whether the chair invited someone to attend the committee; the question is on what date did the chair learn that a person would not be coming. A perfectly fair answer would be on the day of the meeting if the person did not turn up. That would be a perfectly acceptable answer. But the question has been fairly laid because the chair is responsible for who attends meetings. It is a perfectly fair question and I believe that the House does deserve an answer to it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The very first time that this question was put to the chair of select committee he made it quite plain to the House that Mr Judge had not been invited. At that point his responsibilities as the chair of the select committee ceased. 
Mr Speaker the great difficulty you pose is this: are you going to allow the chairs of select committees to start to be scrutinised on what may or may not have been said in the caucus room for instance? On the Tuesday following the change in the chair of the Accident Compensation Corporation I briefed the caucus on the change. If you are going to allow the House to start querying the chairs of select committees on what may or may not have been said in the caucus room—not in their roles as heads of select committees but simply as members of the National caucus—I think you are substantially stretching the Standing Orders on the accountability of the chairs of select committees. Surely the answer rests at the point when the chair of the select committee said that Mr Judge was not invited—something that is not at all surprising given the fact that Mr Judge had been appointed only that week. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I certainly do not intend to go into asking about caucus discussions. I have throughout this matter been relying on the word of Dr Nick Smith who indicated publicly that this arrangement had been made in a phone call that the chairman made to him. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I might also ask you Mr Speaker to reflect on your own statement—I am not sure that you would call it a ruling—to the House the week before last where you said to the Hon Trevor Mallard that if the invitation had never been issued then clearly there was never an issue about when the chair knew that Mr Judge was not coming to the meeting. We get into the absurd situation where a chairman is supposed to be able to say when he found out that someone who had never been invited to the committee was not going turn up. That is not a position that a select committee chair should be put in. It goes back to the question I asked before; people could ask that of you Mr Speaker every day. No one could possibly know whether someone who has not been invited to attend somewhere is not going to turn up. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think we are getting very close to the nub of the whole matter and the reason for this questioning. What happened was something very unusual for a financial review in that a Minister came to the committee and when he arrived he indicated that he was there because the newly appointed chair—although not quite properly appointed chair—of the board was not available to be there. There is common ground in that he conveyed the apologies of Mr Judge for not being there. It was clear to all of us that there is a general expectation that chairs of boards come to committees and that Dr Smith came because Mr Judge was not available. All we are trying to do is to get to the bottom of those circumstances. I think there is a relatively simple explanation. The problem is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not something that is explored under a point of order. Because we have taken a fair bit of time on question No. 1 and I want to reflect on the points that have been made by members I think it is reasonable to go on to question No. 2 now. But I still struggle with this. It is such a plain question that has been asked because it does not really relate to anyone being invited; it relates to when someone became aware of something and I am not sure what the mischief is in answering that. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—2007-08 Financial Review 
2. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Did John Judge convey his apology to him for Mr Judge’s inability to attend the financial review of ACC on 12 March; if so how? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 No because there was never any invitation made for him to attend the select committee hearing on 12 March. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the member not hear Nick Smith apologise for Mr Judge at that committee hearing and say that Mr Judge had asked him to convey that apology? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The primary question asked: “Did John Judge convey his apology to him …”—that is to me—and the answer was no. So I do not see why I need to answer the second question. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—2007-08 Financial Review 
3. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Further to his answer to question to members No. 4 yesterday when he “agreed” was he agreeing to a proposition put to him by the Minister for ACC? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Once again we have a hypothetical question—which is interesting for a start—that tries to delve into matters that have nothing to do with the procedure of the committee. If we are to be opening up the issue of what a select committee chairperson becomes accountable for then please rule Mr Speaker and tell us because I think we have a right to know that. Where a question like that is being asked which is entirely hypothetically based I think the select committee chairperson is being put in an impossible position. Select committee chairs are not like the Speaker. They are part of Parliament. They do belong to caucuses they do have political views and they do exercise them. That is why the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings have tended to ensure that all a select committee chair is responsible for is the procedure of the committee. The rest of us have put up with this questioning for quite a long time—for 4 weeks in fact—but now it is well and truly getting right outside the normal conventions of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Two points should be made in response. The first is that your office Mr Speaker accepted this question with proper authentication showing that that agreement had been made. The second point I should make to reiterate the point I made earlier is that I was not questioning any decision made at a caucus. I was relying on Dr Nick Smith’s word that this had been made as a result of a phone call from Mr Bennett to Dr Smith. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are now getting into substance and not procedure. I realise that the House has been dealing with a difficult thing. But the Standing Orders provide for the chairs of select committees to be questioned. Chairs occupy an important role. Hypothetical questions are allowed. This is not a supplementary question; it is a primary question that has been accepted because it concerns the chairperson’s power to request persons to attend under Standing Order 191. So it is a proper question. Although these questions may be tough it is not my job to prevent members from being able to pursue questions that are legitimate under the Standing Orders. I invite David Bennett to answer the question. 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 I agreed that the Minister would attend and to my recollection no invitations were given by me as the select committee chair. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was the member agreeing to a proposition put to him by the Minister for ACC; if not whom was he agreeing with? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I agreed with the Minister for ACC that he would attend the meeting and there were no invitations given by myself or the committee. 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document entitled “Parole Hearings Change Will Enhance Public Safety” released by the Minister of Corrections at the very time she was denying responsibility— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That last point should not have been made under a point of order and the member knows that. He is deliberately breaching the Standing Orders in doing that. Leave has been sought to table a document. Is there any objection to that? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Offices of Parliament 
Address to Governor-General 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That a respectful Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General commending to His Excellency the appropriations and information for the 2009-10 financial year in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 
. 
The Public Finance Act provides for funding for the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General the Office of the Ombudsmen and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—all to be determined by Parliament through the Officers of Parliament Committee. As part of this process the Officers of Parliament Committee examines submissions for each officer to reach a decision on the funding required for the officers to carry out their duties. The committee then makes recommendations to the House which are in turn fed into the Budget process. 
It is worth noting that this motion is moved today by the Leader of the House rather than the Minister of Finance as would normally be the case for appropriations. That is because it would be inappropriate for the Minister to deal directly with these budgetary requests as these officers are not members of the executive nor are they departments of State. They are in fact quite independent and therefore are extended that higher status of Officer of Parliament. 
Today the National Party will be supporting these appropriations. It is important to realise that these officers are not beholden to any political party but only to Parliament itself. 
I thank the Officers of Parliament Committee for its ongoing work in assisting these important statutory officers to do their duty. Once this motion is passed the remainder of the process to ensure that the appropriations are enacted will be put in place. 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker kia ora tatou. No reira te Whare tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. E nga iwi e nga reo e nga hau e wha. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to us assembled. So to the House greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to you all. Acknowledgments to the people the languages and the four winds 
.] 
When one looks at the make-up of the Officers of Parliament Committee one sees that the members certainly come from the four corners of the political spectrum. The Labour Opposition will support this appropriation. As deputy chair of the select committee I find it a challenging and rewarding position to be in. There is much experience and expertise on this committee. There are various luminaries on this committee. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Henare is not one them I am sorry. But we certainly have some very good people on the committee. We have the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith the Hon Steve Chadwick the Hon Sir Roger Douglas Craig Foss Dr Kennedy Graham and Chris Tremain who has been replaced by the Hon Peter Dunne. There is a very good set of individuals on that committee. 
The Officers of Parliament Committee report contains a summary of the appropriations and details on each agency. There were relatively few changes to the budgets and the report makes them quite clear. 
Firstly we recommend two main changes to the appropriations and baselines for the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General—an increase of $17303. But the office also sought some additional funding; it sought another $50000 for the cost of audit services for smaller entities. The committee did not support the provision of additional funding. 
Regarding the additional funding request to cover the costs of providing audit services to smaller entities these entities included cemetery trusts and reserve boards of which there are currently 145 in New Zealand. In considering this the committee looked at the issue of accountability and at ways in which the job might be better serviced. The report states: “The office said that while there is nothing wrong with the current auditing and financial standards applying these standards to smaller entities can be difficult.” The Controller and Auditor-General informed us that he was now working with the Ministry of Economic Development and the Accounting Standards Review Board. So the office is identifying areas in which improvements can be made. We are looking at increasing efficiency and increasing productivity in this particular organisation. We said: “While we appreciate that the office has difficulties in providing audit services to smaller identities we do not support the provision of additional funding at this time. We note that the office will have to deliver its activities within its existing budget.” 
There is also the issue of the co-location of offices. If we look at the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General and Audit New Zealand we see that these two organisations are looking at coming together as a way of conserving costs and performing better. The Office of the Controller and Auditor-General estimates that additional capital of $4.27 million is needed—quite a considerable sum of money. We have said that the office should recognise that in the current financial climate requests for additional capital should be considered very seriously. We have asked the office to focus on keeping additional expenses to the absolute minimum. 
Further we have the Office of the Ombudsmen. The original appropriation was for three Ombudsmen but we have been informed that there is no need at this stage for a third Ombudsman. Therefore we agree with that particular consideration. Kia ora. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this motion. It is good to see for example that Audit New Zealand and the Auditor-General are getting extra funding. We see their performance every year most recently in the financial reviews and obviously they are skilled in making their financial case given what they do in life. 
The Green Party would like a little bit more money for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the Office of the Ombudsmen. The previous speaker referred to the fact that there was not the need for the third Ombudsman although if members read the Ombudsmen’s annual report they will see that the ombudsmen are doing a lot of work and that they are very concerned about their particular function which I think most MPs uphold—that is of implementing the Official Information Act. They note: “In recent years we have observed an increasing tendency on the part of some agencies and some ministerial offices to ignore the provisions of the Official Information Act in terms of the timing of the responses to requesters.” I do not think that that is good enough; possibly they should have done a “name and shame” in this report on matters in which Ministers and officers are falling short. They also note a regrettable tendency which I think is quite longstanding in certain sectors to “game the system”. Sometimes that means to delay the provision of papers until the end of the acceptable period rather than providing them at its beginning or to keep asking for extensions. We need a well-funded Office of the Ombudsmen to try to control that. 
The office also has a need for plenty of funding because it is just coming to grips with its new requirement under the Crimes of Torture Act where it is the national preventive mechanism—that is the body monitoring prison institutions to make sure there is no ill treatment or torture under the convention against torture. The office states: “We are now in a position to begin our programme of inspections.” The Act was passed in 2006; this is 2009 so I think the office will need plenty of funding and resourcing to carry out that task properly. 
The third area I wish to mention which comes out of the report has quite a horrific figure relating to the office’s important mission of dealing with prisoners’ complaints and conditions in prisons. The report notes: “We estimated about 15 percent of all inmates should be receiving mental health care.” The Minister of Corrections came up earlier in the day with the figure of 8000 prisoners in total. If we take 15 percent of that it means that a lot of people are needing mental health care. But the Office of the Ombudsmen is doing very good work and the Green Party certainly supports what the ombudsmen are doing. 
The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Jan Wright and her team are doing very good work as well. Most recently—in this current month—they have come out with a report  
Change in the high country: Environmental stewardship and tenure review 
. They have considerable concern about the separation of land into Department of Conservation land and private land that is taking place as part of the tenure review. They talk about life block settlements around iconic sites and the intensification of agriculture around high-country lakes—lakes that have been fairly pristine in the past. But the report states that the clarity of high-country lakes should not be taken for granted. 
The commissioner and her team actually support the setting up of a high-country commission to deal with some of these problems including the vegetation problem. They say that weeds such as broom gorse briars lupins and conifers are spreading into the high country and upsetting the balance. Those weeds are also upsetting the natural gradation from alpine vegetation down to lowland vegetation and affecting the drainage into some of the lakes our hydroelectricity comes from. That is of concern. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is playing a very important role in bringing these matters to our attention so we can legislate on them. 
The Green Party will be supporting this motion although we would like a little bit of extra funding for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in particular. Thank you. 
Motion agreed to and Address agreed to. 
Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill 
Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment Bill 
Sentencing Amendment Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move 
 That the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. These bills repeal the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 and introduce a new civil forfeiture regime to complement an enhanced criminal forfeiture regime. This will make it easier to strip organised crime groups of the assets and profits that they have obtained from serious criminal offending. For too long senior organised crime figures have been able to hide behind the people they hire to carry out their dirty work. They have managed to hang on to the wealth they have accumulated by avoiding the conviction required under the current legislation before property can be forfeit. Under this new legislation a conviction is not required to trigger forfeiture proceedings for criminal proceeds. It will be sufficient to prove on the balance of probabilities that a person has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal offending. Conviction will still however be required for the forfeiture of property used to commit serious crimes. 
The legislation empowers police to carry out the new civil forfeiture functions. Police can draw on their existing knowledge expertise and a national operational infrastructure to enforce the new regime cost-effectively. Police will have access to examination and production powers necessary for effective enforcement but these investigative powers are available only by court order which ensures that there are appropriate checks and balances in place. The civil forfeiture provisions will also assist New Zealand to meet its international obligations to fight transnational crime. New Zealand is being evaluated this year for compliance with the Financial Action Task Force’s global standards on countering money laundering and terrorist financing. Civil forfeiture legislation is a key compliance requirement in this regard as are the bill’s international enforcement provisions enabling New Zealand to better assist other countries to recover proceeds of crime that have been moved here. The mutual reciprocity arrangements to which New Zealand is party mean that we can expect the same assistance from other countries. The technological ease with which criminals can transfer and hide funds around the world make it imperative that law enforcement agencies are empowered to move quickly to locate and recover the proceeds of crime. 
We have progressed these bills which were introduced by the previous Labour Government because the threat posed by organised crime to law-abiding New Zealanders is real and unacceptable. It can best be managed by removing the funding necessary for such groups to operate. This is a particularly important tool in the fight against P or methamphetamine given the large amounts of money being made by those who orchestrate the manufacture and supply of this drug. 
I could not finish the third reading of these bills without making some mention of Martin Gallagher. Mr Gallagher who chaired the Law and Order Committee progressed it in a relatively timely manner and acted as a chairperson who was able to guide the legislation through the select committee in a way that could not be described as forceful but that was ultimately effective. Mr Gallagher brought to the deliberations a unique perspective to ensure that all matters were put before the committee in order not to rush it in any way shape or form. On that basis I am confident that the legislation which I hope the House will pass through its third reading today will have met the test of what we are now referring to as the “Gallagher Rigour Test”. 
This Government will not let safety take a back seat and these bills are a key plank in the raft of reforms we are progressing to make New Zealand a safer place. I commend these bills to the House. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to join with Simon Power in acknowledging the contribution of Martin Gallagher in the Law and Order Committee. Indeed I know the select committee put very careful consideration into the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill now divided into the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill and spent a lot of time pondering and giving generally a lot of time—time very very well spent. The result is I think that we have much-improved legislation before this House and in previous speeches in this House I have acknowledged that. I think it is probably worth looking at some of the changes that the select committee took the time to recommend which were accepted and made the legislation more effective. 
Firstly the committee recommended that the police be the recovery body—a very sensible recommendation—and also defined the owner of property to include those who might have an interest in it. I would really like to speak a little more on that because that means that third parties who may have a stake in forfeited property have protection under these bills and that is excellent. 
They can apply to have their stake excluded from any forfeiture order. The exclusion could apply to business relationships with the property owner such as a bank or the dependants and spouses of criminals because they may be the innocent victims of forfeiture orders. The deletion of clause 111 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill which allows the director of the recovery body to issue a notice requiring the production of documents is a common-sense change. New clause 222A permits the Inland Revenue Department to provide the police with information for the purposes of civil recovery. 
The Law and Order Committee’s recommendations have strengthened the legislation. It goes a long way in giving out a very very clear message that crime does not pay. A criminal conviction will no longer be required in order to confiscate property that represents the proceeds of crime or the value of unlawfully derived income. The legislation allows us to tackle gang leaders because although they may not get their hands dirty they enjoy the benefits of the illegal activities of their fellow gang members. People who perhaps are not directly affected can derive a benefit from this legislation. The legislation achieves an appropriate balance between targeting the proceeds of crime and protecting personal rights and property rights. I note that Australia Ireland and the UK have all passed similar legislation and that it is working very effectively. 
It is a pleasure to speak in support of the legislation and commend it to the House. Members have acknowledged that the original bill was introduced by the Labour Government. Perhaps it would have been good to see it go through within the National Government’s first 100 days of action but it did not see that as a priority. Rather it thought the passing of the “90 day ‘sack-at-will’ bill” was a priority. We do not share that view but on this occasion it is a pleasure to stand and commend the legislation to the House. Thank you. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena koutou katoa. 
Paul Quinn 
: Kia ora. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: Kia ora. 
I stand to speak in support of the speeches already given on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill by Green MP Metiria Turei. Metiria has spoken several times on this bill and its friends. She has spoken with lucidity fairness and a sense of justice. It is the duty of this House to legislate with a strong sense of justice as opposed to a strong sense of populism or vengeance or a misguided commitment to policies that fail to deter crime. Therefore the Green Party will be voting against the legislation. Kia ora. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Amongst the 24 submissions received by the Law and Order Committee on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill there was a statement from my electorate of Te Tai Tonga specifically from the Dunedin Community Law Centre that made all the members sit up. The statement raised the concern that there is not adequate provision for people to be able to appeal forfeiture orders or decisions. For example farmers could lose their land if another person grew cannabis on the land without the consent or knowledge of the farmer. 
During the Committee stage I addressed a possible scenario located in the whenua that I whakapapa to—Rangitoto ki te Tonga / D’Urville Island. I canvassed the possibility that land could be seized under this legislation and sold on the market and its ownership lost and all without the original owners being informed. The Minister of Justice presented advice that innocent owners would be able to make application to the court that the land not be sold but unfortunately that is where the situation turns ugly. Once the land is sold it is too late to stop the confiscation. Once the land is sold it is too late for innocent owners to have the chance to go to court to prevent the sale. Notably if those innocent owners simply lack the resources to make an application to the court or even to pay for a lawyer to get them to base one what situation do they find themselves in? The Maori Party objects in the strongest possible form to the possibility of designated Maori land being confiscated—land that is inherited through the generations; ancestral land of great significance to the uri of that area. 
Under the terms of this legislation a profit forfeiture order enforces the seizure of property to a value that represents the profits of significant criminal activity whether committed by the owner or another on his or her behalf. In plain English that means that the court can seize property to the value alleged even if the property itself is lawfully acquired. It is my deepest fear that all this will lead to is another round of confiscation of Maori land. 
I suggest that this situation is similar to what happened to so much of our land and so many of our people in the 19th century. If one person in the whanau or hapu wanted to dispose of his or her interests in Maori land or even to make a claim for a separate interest in the land that person would go to the Native Land Court. However because all claimants had to be present in person before the Native Land Court if the rest of the whanau or hapu wanted to retain their interest in that land—that is if they did not want the land to be sold out from under them—they also would have to go to the Native Land Court and uphold their interest in their ancestral land. 
The Native Land Court hearings were usually held in towns many miles away from their land block so the whanau or hapu would have to travel days to get there. Once at the hearing they would usually have to wait days—often weeks and in many cases months—for their hearing to be held and completed. They were away from their homes and mahinga kai so they would have to buy food and other supplies going into debt to do so. And because they were often away during the planting season they were not able to plant for the following season therefore having to spend that second season buying their food and going into debt to do so. They would have to sell their land that they spent so much time and effort trying to save. That is exactly what we are expected to do now. I cannot pretend in this House that I can sit back nohopuku and close my eyes to the potential effect that this legislation may have for tangata whenua. 
To me it is an interesting coincidence that the third reading of this legislation follows the second reading just last week of the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill. I would suggest that to keep faith with the statutory objectives in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act the Maori Trustee should hold the interest for sale to persons within the class of permitted alienated people and failing a sale apply the income to the Crown until the amount due has been recovered. What will happen to the liable land interest after that? One proposal is that it should be vested in those persons who were the balance owners immediately after the purchase in question according to their shares at the time. 
During the passage of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell presented a Supplementary Order Paper to the effect that the legislation would exclude “Maori customary land and Maori freehold land” “land that has ceased to be Maori land and land acquired from Maori for public works” “Crown land set aside or reserved for use or benefit by Maori … and land vested as a consequence of settlement legislation.” As  
Hansard 
 records when the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by my colleague in respect of Maori land was voted on it received the support of only the Maori Party and the Green Party. 
The Minister has assured me that he will watch carefully to see how the provision is utilised and he also gave me an assurance that he will monitor the situation carefully. But suffice to say it remains a hot point of contention for Maori and the Maori Party and has ultimately led to our not being able to support these bills. 
A related issue in the detail of the implementation will be to ascertain whether multiple-owned Maori land could be sold if one of the owners had acquired an interest by criminal means or had used the land for criminal purposes. If so it would be a most serious matter. If such a law was made with co-ownership of general land in mind but also applied to Maori land it would be quite improper because the circumstances affecting Maori land are not the same as those affecting other land. A law that assumes it can treat everyone the same when there is a minority whose circumstances are patently not the same and who are prejudiced as a result discriminates against that minority. This issue prompts the question of whether that type of discrimination is contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—an issue that the Attorney-General may need to give due consideration to. 
The crux of the issue is the assumption upon which this bill is founded—an assumption that Maori owners will be aware of what is happening to their land and of what other owners are doing. It is assumed that all Maori landowners live on their land yet we are all aware that many live away from their whenua and even away from Aotearoa. 
I want to raise the issue of the way in which the debate has proceeded in this House. 
The major change proposed by this legislation is that a criminal conviction would no longer be required for property representing the proceeds of crime or the value of unlawfully derived income to be confiscated. The assumption is that this amendment will act as a disincentive to criminals and disrupt their capacity to finance further criminal activity. But there are a number of conflicting issues around this. The Human Rights Commission told us that the suggestion that the amendment will act as a disincentive is contrary to evidence from other countries where similar legislation has been introduced. It was the commission’s view also that the bill offends a number of fundamental principles of justice. The legislation relies on lower civil law standards of proof which undermine criminal law protections for defendants. Civil forfeiture orders could come to take the place of criminal proceedings if the Crown considers that it will be difficult to get a successful conviction given the higher standard of proof needed. 
Finally I ask whether it is worth sacrificing principles of justice to recover criminal assets. Is this bill simply yet another reaction to the perceived problem of gangs? Throughout the debate we have heard frequent reference to criminal gangs and the proceeds of their crime. In the main the gangs that appear to attract the shrill excesses of irrational rage are those that would be considered to be Maori gangs yet the white-collar corporate criminal gangs—the organised gangs such as Bridgecorp and Nathans Finance—are rarely mentioned. These corporate rogues have between them chalked up $633 million of debt to over 21000 New Zealanders. In my mind it raises questions around the political opportunism so often demonstrated in our society and I simply ask for whose benefit it is. We will continue to oppose this legislation. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the third reading of the legislation that began as the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill and is now before the House as a divided bill with the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill. The bills between them as we know set up a new civil forfeiture regime that will work as a powerful enhancement to the crime-fighting arsenal of the New Zealand Police and in particular to the ability of the police to clamp down on the illegal gang activity that is of such concern to the good people of New Zealand. 
This legislation will repeal the Proceeds of Crime Act. We know that although the philosophy of that Act is agreed it has not worked in the way it was intended to. It has been shown that it simply does not have the teeth to get to where the real money is in criminal offending. That is why we have the need for these bills to come before us to replace the law we have and to ensure that the law we intended to pass has the teeth this House wanted. 
This Government has given the legislation legislative priority because we are committed to clamping down on gangs and to disrupting their behaviour. It has been said many times in this House during the passage of this legislation that we need to hit gangs in the pocket if we are to have any impact on their activities especially those gangs making millions and millions of dollars out of the P trade which we know is so destructive to our communities our children and our sense of well-being. 
I will just for a moment comment on a little part of the speech made before mine. This legislation does not address just gangs. Let us remember that. It addresses any criminal offending. If white-collar criminals are found guilty of any criminal offending then their assets and profits will be subject to this legislation just like any other criminals. Although we talk about gangs—and certainly they are a big part of the focus of the legislation—the legislation will target any criminals who are convicted it will target any criminal gains that are made and it will allow the police to trace the profits that are made from criminal offending through to wherever those profits might sit. 
It is an important part of the legislation that one does not need to have been convicted for one’s goods to be seized. Although that represents a significant departure from the existing situation it is necessary because we know that with the way complex criminal organisations often work the funds do not always sit with the person who committed the offence. The funds and profits and the property that arises from them will often need to be traced back through many layers of holding to get to where it sits. That is the nature of the way complex criminal organisations will often work. 
The regime proposed in the legislation is very simple. It allows the courts through the police as the enforcement agency to target anyone who has knowingly directly or indirectly received or derived a benefit from significant offending whether or not the person himself or herself was involved in the offending. That is an important change and it is the simple part of the legislation that will give it the teeth that the Proceeds of Crime Act before it lacked. 
When we talk about that sort of significant criminal offending we note in the provisions of the legislation that we are looking at the sort of offending that is subject to a maximum imprisonable term of 5 or more years or from which $30000 or more in value has been derived. We are not talking about the kids who shoplift from the local dairy. We are not talking about minor offending. We are talking about significant offending for which a serious penalty has been imposed by this House or from which serious money has been made. That is the sort of offending we are talking about and this legislation allows the police and the courts to look at offending that has occurred any time in the previous 7 years and then not only to trace the actual proceeds of the crime—we are not talking solely about a situation where a bank has been robbed and one can go away find a bag of money and claim it—but to follow those proceeds through into the benefits or the property that has been purchased with those funds. If $100000 worth of profit was made from the commission of an offence then $100000 worth of property can be seized from the people who have benefited from the offence. 
If we do not take these sorts of measures we will not get at the gangs where it hurts them. We will not be hitting them in the pocket. If there is one thing we have come to know it is that we have to address this thing economically. If there is one thing this House understands it is that we need to hit gangs in the pocket. We need to get at their lifeblood which is their money. This legislation is designed to do that. It takes significant steps forward in doing that. I am very happy to be supporting it. 
When I was speaking on the second reading of the legislation— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: We remember. 
AMY ADAMS 
: —I remember it well too; it was a high point—I talked about a number of the legal aspects of the legislation which I think are worth commenting on. 
I accept that this legislation in going further than has been gone before does raise the prospect of affecting people’s rights. We have to be very careful when we look at limiting or restricting people’s rights to freely hold property that we do so carefully and with due consideration. But I suggest to the House that within the legislation we have the sorts of checks and balances in place that will ensure that these sorts of powers are not used inappropriately. I for one have considerable faith in our police force and our judiciary in terms of their ability to deliver on the expectations that Parliament is setting for them and to make sure they do so appropriately. 
I have been involved in the legal system for 15 years and although I freely admit that it is a long way from perfect I do believe that we have a highly talented judiciary—a judiciary that applies the highest standards of care and proof to make sure its members make their decisions well. I think the same can be said of our police force. Given that the police force is now the agency that will be administering these powers I think it bears repeating that in this country we are very blessed to have a police force that works incredibly hard to make our society a safer place. 
I am very well aware of the lengths the police go to and I know they will be very grateful for any additional tools we can give them that will help them in their battle to crack down on gangs and illegal criminal organisations. The police know as we in this House know that the way to do that is to stop gangs and other criminals from making the sort of money they currently make from crime. That is how we will do it. Yes we can put criminals in jail for the offences the police catch them for but we know that the money supply has to be stopped. We have to turn off that tap and this legislation will be a big part of doing that. 
We have talked about the restraint provisions that allow the court to seize property for up to a year which can be acted upon by themselves or be followed up by the permanent forfeiture provision. When we went through the second reading we went through in some detail the provisions that work in around that—the matters the court will take into account in either of those orders. 
As I have said I think the bill strikes a good balance between checks and balances in relation to safeguards but equally makes no apology for the fact that it puts the necessity of clamping down on criminal organisations ahead of concerns around the rights of criminal organisations. I have no issue with that; I will sleep well at night knowing we might have taken away a right from a criminal organisation if it makes New Zealand a safer place in which to live. 
I think that when we look through the three bills that this legislation has now become we can see that National has taken the Proceeds of Crime Act given it teeth and done so as a matter of priority because this Government follows through on its promises. We do not talk big or huff and puff for 9 years about clamping down on gangs; we deliver on the promise. This bill languished on the Order Paper under Labour for 18 months and went nowhere but with this Government the National-led Government people will see real action on clamping down on gangs. This legislation is a big part of that action and I am pleased to support it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Bills read a third time. 
Sittings of the House 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 The House has made very good progress on the Government’s plans for the week and in view of discussions held at the Business Committee earlier this week I seek leave for the House to rise for the Easter adjournment. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the House to rise. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
The House adjourned at 4.31 p.m.