Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time 
[Volume:610;Page:7425] 
Questions to Ministers 
Algerian Suspected Terrorist—Immigration Service 
1. Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What specific matters has she requested that Mr Andrew Lockhart General Manager of the New Zealand Immigration Service investigate as reported in today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 and why has she done so? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I spoke with the general manager Mr Andrew Lockhart last night after I had spoken to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and asked him to inquire into the allegations that had been raised by a  
New Zealand Herald 
 reporter concerning a complaint made to the Ombudsman and responses from the New Zealand Immigration Service. I felt there were sufficient concerns raised by the journalist to refer the matter to the general manager but I did say that I would need to know what the Ombudsman had been asked for. Prior to coming down to the House I was advised that the matter has been referred to the Secretary of Labour and that terms of reference for the review are being drawn up today. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Given that Mr Lockhart was one of the recipients of the “We agreed to lie in unison.” memorandum how could it be that Mr Lockhart was one of the officials who falsely advised the Ombudsman that such material was not held by the Immigration Service and what sort of reliance would this House place on any report he might make? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The member obviously did not hear the last bit of my answer to the first question. The matter has been referred to the Secretary of Labour. Terms of reference for the inquiry are being established today. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Now that it is clear Mr Smith lied to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on 12 December and both Mr Lockhart and Mr Smith lied to the Ombudsman has it occurred to the Minister that Mr Smith’s memo stating “We agreed to lie in unison.” might be a very accurate record of her officials’ intentions? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As I explained in the House yesterday the conversation on 12 December was in fact an accurate answer to the question that had been put to Mr Smith. There is no confirmation as to the details of the issues relating to the Ombudsman. I would wait until the results of the inquiry before making those allegations here or anywhere else. 
Rodney Hide 
: Could the Minister explain to this House why the public should have any confidence in her department when its top communicating expert said: “We agreed to lie in unison.” when the Minister herself told this House that she had been lied to by her own staff and when we now discover courtesy of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that the same department has lied to the Ombudsman; why should we have any confidence in this department when its staff appear to be a pack of liars? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have not said that anyone has lied to me in respect of this matter. I have also asked for an inquiry into the question that has been raised in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 this morning. I will await the results of that inquiry. 
Rodney Hide 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the  
Hansard  
of the Minister’s answer on 15 October 2000 when she said that her officials had not told her the truth. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Iraq—Defence Force Deployment 
2.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: Has the failure of the United States - led occupation forces in Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction strengthened the Government’s view that it was right to reject calls from National and ACT to join the invasion of Iraq? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 New Zealand stands by its decision not to be involved in the invasion of Iraq. Nothing that has happened since has suggested that our approach—that any such action be multilateral and only as a last resort—was other than sensible. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If Mr Smith wants to interject on someone he should do it from his own seat and not move closer to a speaker. He has done it three times and cannot do it again. He can interject from his own seat. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the almost universal Iraqi hostility to the occupation troops following the invasion of Iraq strengthen the Government’s position which the Minister has just referred to of favouring multilateral peaceful solutions to problems like the Iraq crisis and of giving a very strong mandate to the United Nations? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: While multilateralism was not employed in terms of the decision to invade Iraq I think it is becoming increasingly obvious that there would be real advantages from a greater multilateral effort to ensure that stability and reconstruction can take place in Iraq. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What is New Zealand’s current approach to the situation in Iraq? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: New Zealand has undertaken actions that it foreshadowed before the conflict as being appropriate. We have provided humanitarian aid we have contributed assistance to mine clearing and we will help rebuild civil society under United Nations Resolution 1483 with engineering assistance and assistance to the Iraqi ministry of agriculture. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it his Government’s view that the world would be a better place were Saddam Hussein still in power in Iraq today? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Nobody would mourn the removal of Saddam Hussein per se. He was one of the bloodiest tyrants of any dictatorship in the world. But the peace was always going to be harder to win than the war and that is proving to be the case today. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Does he agree that the failure to locate Saddam Hussein does not mean that he never existed and does he believe that there having been the invasion the demise of the Saddam Hussein regime is a positive or negative outcome from a New Zealand perspective? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Saddam Hussein certainly did exist and he was the same Saddam Hussein who in the 1980s regrettably was supported by Western powers and armed by Western powers notwithstanding that he had all the same characteristics that he has today. There are many dictatorships around the world that it would be ideal to remove but the increasing realisation is that when one removes a dictator one does not remove the problems in that country; sometimes one simply magnifies them. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question: is it a positive or negative outcome from a New Zealand perspective? That was a question to our Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and he cannot answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did answer the question. 
Paul Adams 
: Has the Government’s view that it was right to reject calls from National and ACT to join the invasion of Iraq been strengthened by the comment made on National Radio: “They”—referring to the US—“are at pains to say that both the Iraqi war - type decision and the nuclear policy are separate from how they treat trade.” by the National Party leader Bill English on Friday 20 June? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have seen the comment made by Bill English from Washington DC in which he explicitly denied there are difficulties in the trading agreement with the United States as a result of either the non-nuclear policy we have pursued for many years or indeed our non-involvement in the Iraqi war—[ 
Interruption 
] Dr Lockwood Smith was part of that same delegation that Mr English was reporting on. I also saw the comment from Bill English saying— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have warned and will not warn again about people who move closer to a person answering a question. They can interject from their own seat—there is no objection to that—but they must not move closer to the person answering. [ 
Interruption 
] I have not heard the Minister’s final answer. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a longstanding Standing Order of this House that Ministers do not have responsibility for statements made by other political parties. My question to you is why you did not intervene given that that was the third sentence we have had from the Minister that breached that Standing Order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister was asked to comment on the particular statement. He was perfectly entitled to do so. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has been a longstanding custom in this House that if Ministers choose to refer to members opposite in answering their questions they can expect those members to interject. I think it is unfair to rule that out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members can provided that they do so from their own seat. That is the point I have made. There is a Speaker’s ruling to that effect. It will be upheld. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We perhaps have an unusual set of circumstances in that while you are correct in your ruling the fact is that Dr Lockwood Smith in this case has not moved his seat. Indeed Dr Lockwood Smith and Dr Nick Smith have been sitting in those seats since the beginning of question time and they were positioned there because of a whip’s instruction. It is not as though Dr Lockwood Smith has moved to interject; he has been sitting there and actually asked his question from there. It seems appropriate that on his getting the response that he did he should be able to make comment across the House in response. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 123/7 made in 1996 stating that interjections are not in order at all during question time. I have allowed them to occur but I am going to allow them to occur only in accordance with other rulings made by previous Speakers—rulings that go back as long as I have been in this House. Interjections can be made but they are to be made from the person’s seat. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This helps to explain the frustration felt on this side of the House. We have constant rulings from you that Ministers have answered questions whereas in fact they have not addressed what their own policies are yet they are allowed to stand and talk at length about the policies and comments of another party. That might be fair enough but in that case they should be asked to explain at length what their own comments and their own policies mean. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a political point the member is making and we will see how the supplementary questions go. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a separate issue completely. I welcome your ruling which reinforces that members may not move to a different seat to gain advantage in interjecting. I raise with you the issue that in numerous debates on legislation going through the House other presiding officers in the Chair acting on your behalf have not upheld that ruling. Indeed in many general debates we have seen Government members move to other seats to gain advantage when interjecting and be allowed to do so. I have raised points of order in that vein in the past but they have not been supported by the Chair. I respectfully ask that we have some uniformity in such decisions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I welcome the member’s point of order and I think the other officers have heard it. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister think that the anti-war stand that he has just articulated is compromised by our placing army engineers in a British military unit in Iraq given the growing hostility of the Iraqi people towards the occupation troops and the almost daily targeting of them? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The proposed deployment of New Zealand Defence Force engineers is in fact in response to Resolution 1483 which was passed I think unanimously by the United Nations. These engineers are not part of the occupation forces. They are there to do the job that we said we would always be there to do and that is to assist the civil reconstruction of Iraq. Clearly putting civilian engineers in a situation that is still dangerous is not possible but there is work such as sanitation and water supplies that needs to be done and that our Defence Force engineers can do and will do. 
Keith Locke 
: Can the Minister assure us that if by chance our military people in Iraq do take a prisoner that prisoner will not be passed over to United States jurisdiction because of the clear mistreatment of prisoners by the United States administration there—the fact that they are not allowed access to a lawyer of their choice and are subject to military tribunals that have the death penalty? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Our engineers will be there to do construction work. It will be no part of their task to take prisoners. 
Algerian Suspected Terrorist—Immigration Service 
3.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Is she aware as reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that the Ombudsman had requested from New Zealand Immigration Service officials material which should have included the memorandum which contained the words “Everyone had agreed to lie in unison” and that New Zealand Immigration Service officials denied to the Ombudsman the existence of such material; if so how does she explain these actions? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I am advised that the Ombudsman responded to a complaint from Sarah Boyle office of the Leader of the Opposition that the New Zealand Immigration Service had declined to release any information on the individual concerned under sections 6(a) 6(d) and 18(c) of the Official Information Act. I can confirm that the Secretary of Labour will be inquiring into the matter. However preliminary inquiries have identified that as there was more than one person dealing with the matter—from the Office of the Ombudsmen and from the New Zealand Immigration Service—a communication breakdown could explain the different answers. However I am awaiting a full report. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Does the Minister accept that if both Mr Smith and Mr Lockhart did mislead the Ombudsman about the existence of that memorandum this would be a most serious matter and might very fully explain why Mr Smith wrote in his memo: “Everyone had agreed to lie in unison”? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: My initial advice on this matter is that they were asked different questions that Mr Smith in fact never had any direct dealings with the Ombudsman and that in fact it was done through a third party who had not prepared the media log. There is the ability in this situation for an explanation to arise out of the inquiry. I would like to wait until the inquiry has completed its work before I commented on it and I hope that that member is prepared to apologise if he has attacked the reputations of people unreasonably. 
Deborah Coddington 
: On what date did she first learn that Mr Ian Smith had written to the Ombudsman stating that he had no record of correspondence or memoranda that commented on the Zaoui case? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: There is no such date because I am not aware that Mr Smith wrote directly to the Ombudsman. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Are these words from the letter signed by Mel Smith Ombudsman correct: “I subsequently received advice from Mr Ian Smith” —of the Immigration Service—“that he has no record of any such information nor is he able to recall any information of this nature.” and is she disputing those words signed by the Ombudsman? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As I said to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 reporter last night it depends what question he was asked. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Is she aware that the Ombudsman’s officials interviewed Mr Smith on this matter and that the Ombudsman Mr Smith himself spoke to Mr Smith who is the spokesperson for her ministry and that it was on the basis of specific assurances in the face of persistent Opposition requests that Mr Smith Ombudsman wrote saying that Mr Ian Smith had no record of such information and could not recall such information? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That is the subject of the inquiry. But my advice is that those investigations were conducted by email and in fact the direct email link is with another member of staff from the New Zealand Immigration Service who attached an email from Ian Smith. It depends on what Mr Smith was asked to provide. 
Literacy—Initiatives 
4.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (NZ Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received of the success of Government literacy initiatives in schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 A literacy project in Otara and Mangere is making significant improvements in the reading skills of 6-year-olds according to research I released at the school last week. The research is a watershed for literacy teaching in New Zealand and shows that professional development of teachers has made an enormous difference to student learning. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What was a key finding regarding those children in low-income low-decile school areas and for the wider environs? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: A key finding was that schools and teachers that are able to sustain high levels of achievement are the ones that track the progress of their students over time and use that information to adapt and target their teaching. The study also found that children can achieve regardless of their socio-economic background and that professional development should focus on raising teachers’ expectations of what their students can do. The study backs up what our Government has been focusing on in education. Although I realise we now talk about “reducing disparities” this result is a clear win out of the closing the gaps initiative. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: If the Government has been so successful in its literacy initiatives why do the results of the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study released in April this year show New Zealand children ranked 13th which is second bottom of English-speaking countries and having the longest and greatest disparity in literacy learning; and therefore how can the Minister describe those appalling results as “very pleasing”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: A number of factors should be taken into account. First the long tail is a legacy of the National Government’s abandonment of poor schools. Secondly the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study includes a number of countries that measured children who were a year older than the New Zealand children and that says something for the difference. 
Algerian Suspected Terrorist—Immigration Minister  
5.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Did she say “If there was an agreement to lie heads would roll absolutely they would”; if so in terms of her ministerial responsibility why did she say that? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes because the implication was that I was a party to such an agreement. I was not a party to any agreement. There was no such agreement. I have also been assured by the general manager of the New Zealand Immigration Service that there was no such agreement. I made the comment because if I lost confidence in the service I would be able to refer that matter to the Secretary of Labour. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister not prepared to admit that this is a matter to do with her administration of her portfolio over a long period of time that she has had an experience in the past where she claimed her officials were not telling her the truth as late as 11 October 2000 and that her words bind her in this matter when she said on Television One last night: “If there had been an agreement to lie yes I would have to resign.” and that does not include whether she knew because if she did not she should have been fired for incompetence anyway? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The advice I have received from the general manager was that there was no agreement to lie. I was not a party to any agreement to lie and I stand by what I say. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Does the Minister accept that if it is found that both Mr Smith and Mr Lockhart misled the Ombudsman as to the existence of information he sought from them that those facts on top of Mr Smith’s answer to the  
New Zealand Herald  
in December of last year would be absolutely consistent with there being an agreement to lie amongst those officials? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No it would not be consistent with that and it would not be inconsistent either. I make the point that all employees of the Department of Labour have a responsibility to carry out their duties to the best of their ability. They are required to act with integrity in all matters. I take those obligations seriously. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Why should anybody have confidence in the Minister’s recent statement that “heads would roll absolutely they would” when on 11 October 2000 she stated in this House: “I was misinformed by the Immigration Service” and “I am not prepared to stand up to justify it when my officials have not even told me the truth.”; and how many heads rolled absolutely rolled during that fiasco? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I can certainly inform the member that I felt very bruised at the end of that experience. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Perhaps the Minister might like to expand on that a little further. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am aware there were personal grievance issues arising out of that matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very specific and asked “how many heads rolled” as a result of that incident. Whether or not there were personal grievance matters the answer does not point to the specific question which was “how many heads rolled”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question in terms of the issue of personal grievance. I am not here to judge the answer. An answer was given. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point is that a person may have brought a personal grievance action and been restored to the former position. We just want to know how many heads rolled and why does she not know? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was going to invite the Minister to continue answering the question. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I do not know the answer to that question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the Ombudsman’s statement that points to his being denied disclosure of a very critical document and second that no referral to the Ombudsman—at that level of any administration—would be brought to the Minister’s attention immediately how can she now say in any competent way as a Minister that she did not know what was going on in her department? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It is true that on most occasions I am aware when a request has been lodged under the Official Information Act. On this occasion I was not aware that an Official Information Act request had been lodged or that there had been a complaint made to the Ombudsman. This is a matter I have raised with the Immigration Service. I am unhappy about that fact. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: In the light of the Minister’s statement to the House yesterday that the original questions were responded to by the spokesperson from the Immigration Service and herself from her ministerial office and that she claimed to be well briefed on this matter early in December what responsibility does she take for the compliance of her officials with an Ombudsman’s inquiry that has lasted over 6 months? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: There appears to be a non sequitur—the beginning of that question does not relate to the end—and I cannot see the connection at all. I was present in my office when the phone call came through on 12 December. The information I received at the time indicated that the individual from the Immigration Service had answered the question he was asked. If journalists do not ask precisely the correct question then officials cannot be blamed for answering the question they are asked. I think the member should await the result of the inquiry of the Secretary of Labour on the other matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How many suspected terrorists came into this country and were arrested and sent to prison in the 2 weeks prior to the Zaoui case or the 2 weeks prior to 12 December 2002; more important how can it possibly be that although the Minister is informed in most cases about Official Information Act requests this one at a much higher level—a complaint to the Ombudsman—was not brought to her attention and that being the case why should she not just resign for being utterly incompetent? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were four questions there. Two were outside the scope of the original question. The last two questions were in order and the Minister may comment on those. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not aware of any other individual who was detained in the maximum security prison in the 2 weeks leading up to 12 December. In response to the second question most Official Information Act requests that relate to an individual person are managed through a different section in the Immigration Service. The member can appreciate that lawyers and immigration consultants acting for people who have appeals and reviews make requests under the Official Information Act on a regular basis. They are not referred to my office. This one should have been referred to my office and I have raised the matter with the Immigration Service. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How could the Minister claim that Mr Smith has some sort of sanctuary in the question asked of him by the journalist when in fact the question was the other day and no other suspected terrorists had been picked up in the prior 2 weeks so only one person could be the person who was the subject of the original inquiry; and why is she always a Minister who never knows what is going on in her department? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The answer to the first question is that the question that was put to Mr Ian Smith as I understand it was a question that was very explicit about it having occurred the night before. In fact the individual concerned had arrived on 4 December. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Maori Land Court 
6.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Courts 
: How many applications for foreshore and seabed have been lodged with the Maori Land Court at each of its seven registry offices since 19 June 2003 and what areas are covered by these applications? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister for Courts) 
: 
 Since 19 June 2003 there have been 16 foreshore and seabed applications in the Maori Land Court. One of these was received in each of the Takitimu Waiariki and Tairawhiti registries. Two applications were received in each of the Waikato and Aotea registries and nine were received in the Te Taitokerau registry. It has not been possible unfortunately in the time available to compile a list of the areas covered in the applications but if the member requires this information then I am happy to provide it to him in response to a written question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the Auckland Maori Land Court registrar has confirmed nine new applications for title covering the areas of North Cape Bay of Islands Hokianga Harbour Kaipara Harbour Waitemata Harbour Manukau Harbour Papamoa Beach Waihi Beach and the Hauraki Gulf does she stand by her press statement on the day following the Court of Appeal decision that stated it was a narrow technical decision that would have no practical effect; and if hundreds of thousands of hectares and hundreds of kilometres is minor and technical what does she think would be major? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The decision of the Court of Appeal was technical in the sense that it related to whether there was jurisdiction for the Maori Land Court to hear such matters. My understanding is that there were claims that had been lodged before that decision. They had been waiting to see whether there was jurisdiction for the court to hear it so in that sense yes it was a jurisdictional issue but not one of substance. 
Martin Gallagher 
: In order that we can be crystal-clear in terms of the law as it currently stands do Maori applicants have the right to have customary rights in relation to the foreshore and seabed determined by the Maori Land Court? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is seeking a legal opinion. There are Speakers’ rulings about that but the Minister may comment if she wishes. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes and that was the issue that was determined by the Court of Appeal judgment. That was the matter that was outstanding. 
Stephen Franks 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Government fears the agenda of the Maori Land Court hearing these claims; if not why not—when she appointed to that court activist Caren Wickliffe after she claimed that our Government institutions were not legitimate that Pakeha notions of property were not legitimate and that we need a national Maori body politic made up of iwi and hapu representatives to exercise real and substantive self-government and applauded a Fijian statement after the coup that said: “Without land you are not a Fijian. You should not exchange it you should not sell it and you cannot replace it.”? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: This Government does not fear the Maori Land Court or much else I would suggest. The Government has total confidence as I do in the Maori Land Court. I was not the Minister who was responsible for those appointments though I was consulted before they were made. In fact it is the Minister of Maori Affairs who makes those appointments. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the Minister’s answer to my initial question which asked about the areas concerned the Minister replied that she had not been able to acquire the information in time for questions today—which was reasonable—but said that if I wished to obtain that information I would need to obtain it by way of a written question. I suggest that a more appropriate way forward would be for the Minister to provide the information to me as soon as it is available so that I do not have to use up additional questions when the Government has not been able to answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no restriction on the number of written questions a member can ask— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: There’s a timing issue— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister said a “written question”. I heard her reply. I would expect the Minister to give a prompt reply and she has just indicated that she will. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes I am happy to do that. It is just that it takes some time to get all the applications in the areas and to do the precise calculations. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting the statement that the Government would legislate to ensure that foreshore and seabed are owned by the Crown when will this House see the legislation to implement that Government policy? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Government is working assiduously on this issue and will have an answer as soon as practicable. We hope that will happen not only in the fullness of time but early in the fullness of time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister had any reports from her department or wherever outlining the ACT party leadership’s attitude or the National Party leadership’s attitude on Treaty of Waitangi issues such as this; and how does it accord with the 2003 expressed policy from the same sources? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is not responsible for the ACT party or the National Party and therefore the question is too wide. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could I just submit though that if she has received such a report from her department—it would be most unusual for a department not to submit it to a Minister—on the previous history of these events then it is within the ambit of her responsibility. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. If she is asked: “Has she received a report on the policies?” she certainly can answer that question. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 128/6. The ruling was made by Deputy Speaker Gerard and states: “If a Minister is asked a question about a report or whether the Minister has received a report … The Minister in answering about the report cannot be hypothetical about what may or may not be the effects of another political party’s policy.” I would have thought that that referred to the exact question that was asked by Mr Peters. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Mr Peters asked whether any reports had been received and that is a perfectly proper question to ask. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I have received no specific reports but in preparation for the answer to this question today I noted the excellent speech made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith during the second reading debate on the Ngai Tahu bill which I think was a model of how there was cross-party support on these matters. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is where we now run into some difficulty. We have difficulty—and this point was made a previous point of order—getting Ministers to comment on their own policy yet that Minister made a statement about previous National Party policy. She had already answered the question by saying yes she had received the report. That was all she was asked and that is all she needed to say. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is perfectly correct but I did not take it as an offensive comment in any way. The senior Opposition whip is technically correct. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Presumably it is legitimate to ask whether a Minister had received a report on Government policy as it has been applied in the past as it may differ from policy today. What is not I would have thought legitimate—and it may seem strange for me to raise this point—is to be asking for a report on Opposition policy because then that is a wide open invitation to breach the Standing Orders and the rulings in relation to what ministerial responsibility is. I would have thought that it really is a matter of whether it relates to previous actions of Governments or whether it is on current issues of party policy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes the member is perfectly correct. 
Truancy—National Student Database 
7.  
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he agree that a national database of school students would assist in identifying truant and transient students as proposed in Labour Party policy for the last three elections? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Minister agree with his ministry officials who told the select committee that the best way to deal with consistent absenteeism was not to prosecute parents but was through collaboration with professional workers in the external agencies and if the ministry is not going to be required to use the law what is the point of having such a law? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Generally I agree that that is right. They do of course on occasion use the law. 
Jill Pettis 
: Does the Minister believe that the proposed database is in fact the be-all and end-all to fixing this problem? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I do not. One only has to look at the other side of this House to work out that turning up is not enough. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that was just designed to create disorder. He will withdraw and apologise for that last comment—after his first words. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the Minister told Parliament yesterday that a national database was not Labour policy in 2002 when it was; that officials said a review on truancy would be completed by December last year but it was not; and that they said there would be a report on database options by June this year and there was not are the Minister himself and his ministry getting advice from immigration officials on how to lie in unison? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That question is not in order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday the Minister said quite categorically that it was not Labour Party policy. That is a direct contradiction of what he said today. If that is not incorrect what is it? I think the Minister should be accountable for giving such incorrect information 2 days in a row. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The comment “lie in unison” was out of order and should not be used. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not quite sure what redress I have when the member opposite makes up comments from yesterday. I was very careful yesterday to indicate that I was not absolutely sure on the matter. As has been clear from the question I did not remember accurately but I did put some put real brackets around my answer yesterday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I am saying is this: that is getting into an argument not a point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the Minister’s answer yesterday. It was not part of the 2002 pre-election policy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. Now I apologise to Mr Alexander. I did not realise the member had not had the first supplementary question. I call the member now. 
Marc Alexander 
: In the light of the Minister’s statement in the House yesterday that “one of the things we learnt in Government was that setting up massive computer systems without knowledge of how they were going to be used is not the best approach” did he discover this problem in Labour’s first term; if so why was the database still Labour’s election policy in 2002? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We have discovered quite a lot more in the past 12 months around schools’ ability to interact with central government agencies via databases. What is clear is that there are at least 700 schools that do not have that ability and that is something I was certainly not aware of when this policy was put into the 2002 election manifesto. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree that the most important factor in managing truancy is not the keeping of a simple list of students but rather their active engagement in education; if so what is the Minister doing to provide support to returned students such that they want to stay in school and not wag? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I agree with the basic premise behind the question. We do need to make sure that students are enthused about learning and staying engaged in education. That is why the Government is focusing on quality teaching and teaching that is effective for all students regardless of their background. What is clear is that students who are doing well at school and are engaged and focused do not truant. 
Marc Alexander 
: In the light of the admission to a select committee last week by Ministers Goff Dalziel and Dyson that their agencies failed Bailey Kurariki a habitual truant will he as Minister of Education follow this honourable path and admit that in this case there were and are things that the agencies under his control could have done better? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Certainly. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister explain why setting up a national student database to stop truancy is not a priority for the Government yet legislation that stops our returned servicemen from smoking at their local Returned Services Association is? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can answer the first part of the question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is not a question of having problems doing the legislation; it is a question of schools having the means and the systems to interact with a national database. They do not. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister think it is appropriate that at least two-thirds of secondary students on the roll of the Correspondence School are considered at risk when those kids have demonstrated an unwillingness to attend school and would therefore find it difficult to have the self-discipline to learn at home? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Again I agree with the basic premise that underlines the question. The Correspondence School is not an ideal option for students at risk. The one point I would make to the member is that over the last few years between 1996 and 2002 in both primary and secondary schools truancy has dropped. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister expect truancy officers to do their job effectively when their funding has not increased for 5 years and some truancy services like the one in Patea pay their staff from community grants to maximise the resources the ministry gives them; and is this what Labour meant in 1996 when it promised to adequately fund efforts to combat truancy? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think that the problem in Patea is related to community confidence with the school. That is why I understand there are only about 80 children on the roll of the secondary school. It is a much wider issue than truancy there. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I seek leave to table the pages from the 2001-02 financial reviews that report the Ministry of Education statements referred to in my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Marc Alexander 
: I seek leave to table Labour’s education policy from the 1996 1999 and 2002 elections. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the coalition agreement between United Future and the Labour Party which shows that at that point in time this matter was never raised. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that agreement. Is there any objection? There is. 
Algerian Suspected Terrorist—Inquiry 
8.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Will she hold a full independent public inquiry into her and her department’s handling of suspected terrorist Ahmed Zaoui’s arrival and stay in New Zealand; if not why not? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 No. Given that the matter is not finally resolved and because security matters and other issues cannot be commented on publicly it is not possible at this stage to hold such an inquiry. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why should anyone have any confidence in an in-house whitewash inquiry when the Minister previously described those people involved in this inquiry in the following terms: “It has let this House and this country down. I am not prepared to stand up to justify it when my own officials have not even told me the truth.” and moreover when she did not know today whether any heads had rolled as a consequence of that; why would anybody have any confidence or trust at all in the inquiry which she will have handled by her own officials? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have not asked the border and investigations officers of the Immigration Service to conduct the inquiry. I have been advised today that it has been referred to the Secretary of Labour. The terms of reference are being drawn up as we speak. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Do any parts of the Immigration Act applying to Mr Zaoui prevent disclosure of any details of the case; if so when did they come into effect? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes. They came into effect on 1 October 1999. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: When the Minister first had this matter raised with her by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on Monday why did she not seek a full and comprehensive briefing on the background so that she could make a decision about the need for an inquiry at that point or is it the case that she did ask for such a briefing and the department withheld important information from her? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: There was nothing on the Monday night that required a request from me to the department for an inquiry. The issues that were raised last night with me with the journalist concerned raised questions about how an Ombudsman had been responded to. That was an entirely different matter. 
Heather Roy 
: Is the real reason she will not hold a full independent public inquiry because she is concerned that she will be found to be one of the people whom top immigration spokesman Mr Ian Smith is complaining about who did not stick to the original song? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have said to this House on more than one occasion and will continue to say it that I was not involved in any agreement to lie and my department was not involved in any agreement to lie and I will continue to say that until members accept that that is the case. The real reason I cannot have an inquiry into the matter is that it is not finally resolved and because of security matters and other issues that cannot be commented on publicly as a result of legislation that came into effect on 1 October 1999 this is not an appropriate time for an inquiry. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister aware of the following facts: first of all the Immigration Service is part of the Department of Labour; second on matters of national security a full public inquiry can hear such matters in camera on application where they are relevant to that inquiry; and third why would she go on weakly defending glaringly obvious liars and conspirators while denying New Zealanders the right of a full public inquiry into this whole dodgy disgraceful affair? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Only two of those questions are to be commented on. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes I am aware that the New Zealand Immigration Service is an arm of the Department of Labour; of course I know that. The second question which I have been advised is the only other question I can answer is very plain. With regard to the matter that the member raised which has now completely escaped me— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will again bring the matter to the Minister’s attention. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Oh yes the member raised the question of whether— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I will bring the question again to her attention. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No no— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: She said the question completely escaped her and I want to help her out. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have recalled the question now. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: But I am getting sick and tired of this. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister said that she has remembered. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The second question related to the fact that we could hold a full public inquiry in camera. It would not be a public inquiry. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is not a frivolous matter for the Minister to be trying to laugh away. The reality is that I asked whether she was aware that in a full public inquiry or a commission of inquiry if matters of national security are claimed to be part of the evidence then that part of the evidence can be heard in camera. To then say that I was suggesting that a full public inquiry be held in camera in total is an absolute nonsense and I wish you would take it seriously. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister could rephrase the answer that she gave and I invite her to do so. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Given that the matter is not finally resolved issues of security and other issues that cannot be commented on publicly are at the heart of the question that the member put to me which was about my department’s handling of suspected terrorist Ahmed Zaoui’s arrival and stay in New Zealand. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can matters of national security if they are to be raised in this case possibly be properly dealt with by the Department of Labour or the Immigration Service; how can she possibly give that as a reason she is not going to hold a full public inquiry? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I need to refer the member to I think Part 4 of the Immigration Act which deals with matters of security. That part of the Act came into effect on 1 October 1999. It addresses issues of security. 
Climate Change—Partnership United States 
9.  
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: What progress has he made in building a climate change partnership with the United States? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 Very good progress. Last week I met a United States delegation and we agreed on a number of new climate change partnership projects. These include work on climate change science; technology development; greenhouse gas accounting in forestry and agriculture; engagement with business; cooperation with developing countries; and climate change research in the Antarctic. 
David Parker 
: Will these partnership projects with the United States include any work on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes. The list of projects agreed with the United States includes further research into measuring and mitigating agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. This reflects the fact that the United States like New Zealand recognises the significance of agricultural greenhouse gases and the importance of finding ways to reduce them. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Will the Government consider joining the climate action partnership between the United States and Australia as an alternative way of addressing climate change in the event that Russia fails to ratify and the Kyoto Protocol collapses; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The partnership to which the member refers is a research partnership between the US and Australia. New Zealand has a research partnership between itself and the US and it has a research partnership between itself and Australia. We kind of are in there anyway. 
Rod Donald 
: What exactly is the value of signing a protocol with a country that refuses to commit to the Kyoto Protocol because it might hurt its economy—even though a viable economy would not be feasible if there were runaway greenhouse gas emissions—and that is prepared to see low-lying Pacific islands become submerged simply because it wants to maintain its present lifestyles? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The United States and New Zealand of course have a different view on the Kyoto Protocol. The United States has decided not to ratify it. New Zealand already has along with I think 101 other nations. However the fact is the United States science base is very strong very well informed and very keen to collaborate with New Zealand especially in addressing certain gaps. There is a bunch of oceanographic work in our southern oceans that needs to be done. There is a bunch of work that can be done with and for Pacific Island nations to help them manage mitigation. 
Crime—Forensic Investigations 
10.  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What is the role of forensic investigation in solving crime and does he consider it to be important? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 The role of forensic investigation is to determine evidence. Where there is forensic evidence I am advised that the police consider its investigation important and I agree. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In the light of the Government’s $4 billion surplus why has he allowed a critical bottleneck to develop in forensic examinations with front-line police now having to wait up to 9 months for criminal evidence to be examined and up to 2 years for the analysis of drug scenes; and what does he say to police and the victims of crime who regard his failure as justice delayed which is justice denied? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: In all cases where the police have vital evidence it is processed quickly. I told that member in answer to question for written answer No. 6863 lodged on 16 July that as of 1 July 2003 there were 59 samples in the DNA national database that were classified as “work in progress”. The national database receives an average of 875 samples per month. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: What is the role of forensic investigation in solving crime and does he consider it to be important? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Well the obvious examples include fingerprinting document examination ballistics computers photography and DNA. Local and international expertise is assessed as required. For example in the double-murder Barlow case the ballistic examination was carried out in Germany. 
Richard Worth 
: Against the background of the surpluses in the police budget which the Minister spoke about yesterday why is he not taking immediate steps to contract out forensic work and avoid the current delays in the prosecution of murder burglary and methamphetamine cases or is this a case of his praying for the miraculous delivery of resources and dithering in the meantime? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: What I am praying for is an Opposition that actually knows that the work is already contracted out to the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Exactly how many of the 23 homicides 970 sexual attacks and over 1800 robberies and grievous assaults that remain unsolved are unsolved as a result of the backlog in DNA forensic testing by the institute? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: If the member wants that precise information I am happy to provide it. But I can say that all urgent work is done quickly by the forensic people. Less urgent stuff or evidence that is not likely to present a solution is not dealt with as quickly. 
Tourism—Maori Initiatives 
11.  
NANAIA MAHUTA (NZ Labour—Tainui) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Tourism 
: He aha ngaa kaupapa i te Kawanatanga. He tautoko ngaa mahi taapoi Maaori? 
Translation: 
 What is the Government doing to support and develop Maori tourism throughout New Zealand? 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Associate Minister of Tourism) 
: 
Kei te whakatakoto te Kawanatanga te rautaki ki te tau 2010 te putea $1000000 mo nga tau e toru ki te tautoko i nga ropu Maori tapoi kia tuai i roto i ia rohe ia rohe puta noa i te motu. The Government has made a commitment to Maori tourism by implementing a key recommendation from the New Zealand Tourism Strategy 2010. This Government has set aside funding of approximately $1 million over 3 years to develop Maori regional tourism groups right around New Zealand. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: He aha etehi o nga taonga tuturu Maori e pai ana ki nga manuwhiri tuarangi i to ratou taunga mai ki Aotearoa? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
What are some aspects of traditional Maori life that appeal to visitors from afar when they land here in New Zealand? 
] 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: Kei te maha nga manuhiri e haere mai ana ki te whai i nga tikanga Maori. Kei te whakamiharo ratou nga manuhiri ki te ataahua o nga waiata me nga mihi whakatau i roto o te reo Maori me te reo o nga matua tupuna. Te tohu tenei wiki ko te korero i te reo Maori. Many visitors who come to New Zealand come for a Maori cultural experience. They show their appreciation when they are entertained by waiata and mihi of welcome in the Maori language—the language of our tupuna. It is particularly significant this week to encourage our people to speak in the Maori language—this being Maori Language Week. 
Metiria Turei 
: Kei hea tetahi wahi marumaru mo te mana whakairo hinengaro me te mana ahurea Maori kei whakahekea ki te turanga o te tiki kirihou? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Where will Maori intellectual property and cultural rights be placed in the strategy to protect them so that their status is not reduced to that of a plastic tiki? 
]  
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: Koia tena tetahi a nga tirohanga a te ripoata a te Kawanatanga mo nga ahuatanga e pa ana ki nga tapoi Maori e pa ana ki te iwi Maori. Na ko tena ko tetahi o nga taonga e korero nei i roto o te ripoata kei te whai i te Kawanatanga. There is a report from Te Puni Kokiri in terms of branding Maori and using a standard in terms of the presentation and production of the Maori tourism product right throughout Aotearoa. 
Defence Force—Security Assets 
12.  
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Does the Government have any plans to update the New Zealand public on the extent of New Zealand’s military and security assets by way of a white paper or similar document; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Yes. 
Simon Power 
: How much of the $2 billion of defence spending promised by the Government will be funded from accumulating depreciation as noted by the former chiefs and reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 this morning? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can assure the member that all of the long-term development plan will be funded from a combination of capital injections available finance through—[ 
Interruption 
]—I am sorry; I got an interjection from a very helpful colleague—from depreciation and various other matters. 
Simon Power 
: How much? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I do not have the exact figures with me. I am happy to provide them to the member. But the key thing is of course that there is a long-term development plan and it does lay out a comprehensive systematic acquisition programme in keeping with the policy framework that this Government published in 2000. 
Tim Barnett 
: Has he seen any other reports on the need to address the state of New Zealand’s military assets? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes. In the  
New Zealand International Review 
 Simon Power speaking personally is reported as saying: “I acknowledge that the National and National-led Governments did not allow defence spending to keep pace in the 1990s.” Further in relation to the effectiveness of our Defence Force he said: “Courage is no substitute for good policy and appropriate equipment for that policy.” I agree and that is why we put in place a coherent policy and implementation process. 
Keith Locke 
: How does the long-term development plan which the Minister has just referred to help us develop assets for peacekeeping such as we are doing in the Solomon Islands at present? 
Hon Mark Burton 
: What it does is ensure that we have an acquisition process that is rationally and logically based on the defence policy framework that was published in 2000 then outlined in the defence statement of 2001. There is a direct connection between what we are doing in the world and how we are going to do it. 
Simon Power 
: How can the Minister expect us to take his reassurances seriously when even today the deployment of an Air Force Iroquois helicopter was not possible because of the breakdown of the Hercules transport plane? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Unlike the member I am not in the habit of attacking our Defence Force personnel when they are working on a very hard and full programme. I can say precisely because the very upgrade programmes that are required to put in place the modernisation of the Air Force are in the long-term development plan. Tenders are being called for. That alone the Air Force upgrades will involve the expenditure of between $900 million and $1.1 billion. 
Question Time 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would appreciate it if you would be prepared to reflect on the ruling that you appear to have imposed on the House today in respect of interjections being permissible only from a member’s own seat. The reason I raise the matter is this. During a number of debates in Parliament it is common practice when the House is not full for members to gather often around their whips’ desks and speak from those points. It means that there can be much more interactive debate and what is more if members were not allowed to interject from those points they could not really take part in the debate. What that would mean is that members would have to sit in their own seats around this Chamber and that would destroy the spirit of debate in the Chamber because some members who wanted to interact in the debate would be forced to speak from way up the back of the Chamber. I am concerned that if you were to enforce that absolutely it would be somewhat damaging to the spirit of the Chamber. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 My understanding of the Speaker’s ruling is that one should not move one’s seat in order to be able to interject better. I think the National Party was in some difficulty today because so few of its regular front bench were here that it needed to fill up those seats with back-benchers; otherwise it would have looked terribly thin on television. In that sense it seemed to me that Dr Lockwood Smith was moved forward merely to fill up some of the gaps left by his absent colleagues and therefore had to interject from that position. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister I am afraid has gone a little far there—that was a reference to members’ absence. I think the member has raised an interesting point and I am going to think about it. But I just want to say that Speaker’s ruling 123/7 states: “While interjections have traditionally been permitted during debate they are not in order at all during question time.” I take a little more liberal view on that than some of my predecessors and perhaps that is my mistake. I prefer however to allow there to be the odd comment provided that it is not unreasonable. I did not think that the one comment made by the member concerned the member who raised the point of order was unreasonable but another colleague of his had about four or five goes and I thought that that was going too far. I will be reasonable about it but I do not want to be too reasonable. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that there is probably an additional point that could be made and it has to do with our using the advice of experienced members of the House. I think that on occasions like this it would have been more appropriate to invite one of the most experienced National Party members Mr Williamson to come to the front rather than to have him in the gallery. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member is trying my patience now and being silly.