Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:9035] 
Questions to Ministers 
Capital Market Development Taskforce—Report 
1. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What will be the Government’s response to the report of the Capital Market Development Taskforce? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Today I announced the release of the Government’s action plan responding to the recommendations of the Capital Market Development Taskforce. The plan sets out the Government’s response to each of the task force’s 60 recommendations and what action the Government is proposing to take by whom and by when. We are committed to supporting the task force’s key recommendations. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How will the Government balance the need to encourage greater investment in our capital markets with the need to protect investors particularly mum and dad investors who may be new to the market? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: We will continue to work to ensure that our capital markets create safe opportunities for retail investors provide investments that are easy to understand and enforce these investor rights. We will be taking two key steps. First as recommended by the task force we will consider consolidating parts of the regulatory functions of the Companies Office the Securities Commission and NZX into a new market conduct regulator. This new regulator would have a much greater emphasis on enforcement of our securities laws. The second key step is assigning a formal coordination role for financial and investment literacy to myself as Minister of Commerce. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement last year that the Government would demonstrate how important it regarded the recommendations as being by the Prime Minister leading the response to them; if so what does that mean in light of the Minister announcing the response to the recommendations today and leadership on the finance hub recommendations being allocated to Gerry Brownlee? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The Prime Minister did lead the Government’s response by referring to it in the Prime Minister’s statement at the start of the year. It is important to the Government’s agenda. The detail of the proposals produced largely falls within the ambit of the commerce portfolio and that is why I made the announcement on behalf of the Government today. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How does the Government’s response fit into the Prime Minister’s goal to lift the long-term performance of the economy in order to make New Zealand a more prosperous country capable of providing well-paid jobs? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Business needs capital in order to grow and the markets are a vital source of financing those businesses. By making the capital markets work better we will see greater amounts of investment flow into them. This growth will bring more jobs and more high-paying jobs. The task force also identified opportunities that New Zealand could pursue such as becoming a hub for managed fund administration. The Government is pursuing that initiative. Officials who are working with private sector experts will report back to Ministers on this in May of this year. 
Whanau Ora—Prime Minister’s Statements 
2. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all his recent statements about Whanau Ora? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes. 
Hon Annette King 
: In light of his comments that Whanau Ora will be provided to all New Zealanders will funding be available to all providers wanting to be involved in the programme or will it be limited to those providers who provide kaupapa Maori - based services? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is the intention of the Government that Whanau Ora will be available to all New Zealanders in need. Of course there will be a process to go through as the programme is rolled out. Those details will be announced in due course. 
Hon Annette King 
: In light of that answer why did he say on Radio Waatia this morning that Whanau Ora will operate like kohonga reo under a Maori kaupapa; if this is the case how does he envisage the programme working for all New Zealanders coming from many different cultural backgrounds? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: A number of services around the community already operate in a kaupapa Maori way but they provide all their services for all New Zealanders within their areas. As you know many Maori health providers in New Zealand are health providers for everybody. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why is he telling Maori media that Whanau Ora is for Maori and telling mainstream media the opposite which is that it is for all New Zealanders? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That is not what the Prime Minister is doing. The Prime Minister has been absolutely consistent as has Mrs Turia that this is a concept for all New Zealanders. The contradiction is actually from members opposite. The Maori Labour members are apparently criticising the Maori Party for having a programme for all New Zealanders yet the Pakeha Labour members are claiming the opposite. 
Hon Annette King 
: When he signed the relationship confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party he agreed to recognise the importance of mana maintenance mana enhancement and significant outcomes for Maori through Whanau Ora so why is he now fudging the programme that was always designed for Maori by Mrs Turia and is it because his polling is telling him that his supporters do not like the policy? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Firstly it seems the polling is showing that New Zealand is endorsing the Prime Minister as opposed to the member opposite. Secondly the Government has been quite clear from the very beginning that Whanau Ora has potential to benefit Maori but is not limited to Maori. The current system is characterised by multiple contracts measures and interventions when the focus should be on what can be achieved to support families and empower them rather than on boxes being ticked. Whanau Ora aspires to take that step; it requires a significant amount of work which has been ongoing for some months and there is more work to do. 
Rahui Katene 
: Is he aware that Associate Professor Rawiri Taonui head of Maori and indigenous studies school at Canterbury University has said that Whanau Ora will be the most effective policy initiative for Maori since World War II and is this assessment of Whanau Ora consistent with any other views he has heard from Maori? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I do not have the information in respect of the Prime Minister himself but I do know that the Prime Minister has been told by the Minister of Health that there is very strong support amongst Maori and non-Maori providers for the opportunities that Whanau Ora provides as a new way of delivering services mainly focused on empowering families to take responsibility for themselves because the current system is not working. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he agree with the Minister of Health who said that funding for Maori programmes is race-based and would not be tolerated under a National Government? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Whanau Ora is a programme for all New Zealanders. 
Rahui Katene 
: Is it true that Pacific people are very keen to be involved in the concept of Whanau Ora as is the non-governmental organisation sector and is there any opportunity for these people to be included in the implementation? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes I am very aware that Pacific people and many in the non-governmental organisation sector are very keen on the concept of Whanau Ora and that there will be opportunities for these groups to be included in implementation. The most important thing that the Prime Minister has noted from talking to those groups is that the current system is not working and this approach will empower families to take greater responsibility for themselves. That is something the Opposition does not like. 
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research—Annual Temperature Data 
3. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: Did he seek advice before telling the House yesterday that the up-to-date schedule of adjustments made to the raw temperature data used in calculating NIWA’s official series “Mean annual temperature over New Zealand from 1853 to 2008” is “not set out as a singular document … . Rather it is a range of material all of which is available on the institute’s website”; if so from whom did he seek that advice? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 Yes I did seek advice before I answered the question in the House yesterday and I sought that advice from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research. My statements in the House were based on the range of material provided by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research. This morning I was provided with a document by the institute entitled “The NIWA ‘Seven-Station’ Temperature Series”. This is a five-page document that includes a table of adjustments of the seven locations. The title of the document had been supplied to me yesterday but not the document itself and at that stage I did not appreciate that it contained a table. I have since provided the document to Mr Boscawen along with a specific document of adjustments to the Hokitika site which is one of the seven sites. I will seek to table both of these documents in the House today. I have also arranged for the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research to brief Mr Boscawen on the issue of temperature adjustment of the seven reference sites. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that the Minister was—[ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. I appreciate that the Minister was giving helpful information but we cannot go on indefinitely with answers. 
John Boscawen 
: Is the Minister aware that the document he has just referred to contains a detailed analysis of only one of the sites in the institute’s seven-station temperature series and that this document falls well short of a schedule of adjustments which explains not just what adjustments have been made but also why they have been made; and will he commit to tabling in the House a full up-to-date schedule of adjustments? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I have just committed to tabling the relevant document but I might note that there are actually two documents. The first is the temperature series and the second is the more detailed information about the Hokitika site. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research is going to do a full study or review of each of the seven sites and those documents will be tabled. 
Colin King 
: What additional work will the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research undertake in addition to the seven-station series? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The Government is well aware as indeed New Zealanders are of the importance of these issues as indeed is the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research. That is why it is undertaking a full review of each of the seven reference sites as it has already done with the Hokitika site. I might also note because this issue came up yesterday as well that I have asked the institute to look at the public usability of its website so that the key documents on climate change are more accessible as one goes through the website. 
John Boscawen 
: Was the Minister aware yesterday that the general counsel of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Mr Tim Mahood has already admitted in writing on 29 January that the institute does not hold copies of the original worksheets and complete records used to construct the official New Zealand temperature series that staff are retrospectively reconstructing the reasons for the station data adjustments and that therefore his answer to the House yesterday that the information is available on the institute’s website is demonstrably false? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I am not aware of the information about the general counsel. The documents I have referred to today are dated 9 February 2010 and were placed on the website at this point in time. The institute is very confident that it has done a robust analysis. Can I also say that because there is essentially a reconstruction of history when sites are shifted they do not simultaneously exist in both places. Necessarily it is in the nature of estimates but of course based on appropriate scientific methodology. 
I seek leave to table two documents in the House. The first is the document from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research entitled “The NIWA ‘Seven-Station’ Temperature Series” dated 9 February 2010 which does include the schedule. 
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 Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I seek leave to table the second document “Creating a Composite Temperature Record for Hokitika” which is also dated 9 February 2010. 
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. 
John Boscawen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister referred to the document he is proposing to table as containing the schedule. I wonder whether he could explain to the House what that schedule refers to because our understanding— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member cannot do that. The Minister adequately described the documents that he was seeking leave to table. The House has approved the tabling of those documents and that is the end of that matter. 
Justice Ministry—Confidence 
4. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he have confidence in the Ministry of Justice? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the Government front bench on this occasion that it is perfectly in order for another member to seek a supplementary question. It was my error that I assumed the question was going to be from Jacinda Ardern. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I am sure she is very concerned about being confused with me. Does the Minister stand by his comments from his spokesperson as reported by the New Zealand Press Association yesterday that Judith Collins is “a much better fit” to deal with the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill because she would be responsible for its implementation? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Yes. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: As the Minister responsible for sentencing can he therefore explain how the police who of course are the principal advisers to the Law and Order Committee will be responsible for implementing in part or in whole the sentencing provisions in the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Yes and the reason is that the “strike” is triggered not by the sentence as was previously the case but by the conviction. Therefore the way in which a charge is laid and the police’s discretion in laying that charge are critical to the operational elements of the new hybrid legislation. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Has he sought or received any advice from his justice officials about the level of experience of the police in advising on and partially or wholly implementing a sentencing regime such as that contained in the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill; if so what was that advice? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I have not received advice on the experience of the police in providing advice. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No in implementing it. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: That is what you said. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Or implementing the bill. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: No that is what you said. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Can he confirm that the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill seeks to amend the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Parole Act 2002 that the Minister responsible for both these Acts is the Minister of Justice not the Minister of Police and that the Ministry of Justice is the responsible Government agency not the New Zealand Police; if so why has he as Minister of Justice washed his hands of the bill and why has the Ministry of Justice been blocked from any further involvement in its progress? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: It was Cabinet that made the decision about who the responsible member would be for the bill. I am utterly satisfied that the position in respect of the police leading what is a highly operational change to the bill is appropriate. I support that and I support the bill. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Will the Minister acknowledge the constitutional dangers—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think some interjections are reasonable but it has just got too noisy. Even though the honourable member has a loud voice I was struggling to hear him then. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Will he acknowledge the constitutional dangers in blurring the lines of separation between the roles of the police who arrest and charge people the justice agencies who administer sentencing and the corrections department which incarcerates folk? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I concern myself from time to time with constitutional issues like the one that the member outlines which is why I was very confused about the fact that under the previous Government one person was both the Minister of Police and the Minister of Justice. 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou katoa—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member—[ 
Interruption 
] The Hon Annette King knows better and she and the Hon Chris Finlayson will please cease the debate they are having across the front of the House because I want to hear Catherine Delahunty—and I am sure members of the House do too. 
Women—Representation on Boards 
5. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Women’s Affairs 
: Does she stand by her statement: “it is important that women and men stand shoulder to shoulder in our boardrooms”? 
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 Yes. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: How can women and men stand shoulder to shoulder on the Government-appointed National Infrastructure Advisory Board when it consists of eight men and no women? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: The member will be pleased to know that the Government looks at the overall result and in the quarter from October to December 2009 47 percent of the board members appointed to Government boards and committees were women. I acknowledge my National Cabinet colleagues for recognising and appointing competent women to their boards. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: How can women and men stand shoulder to shoulder on the Government-funded Tax Working Group when it consists of 13 men and no women? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: On this side of the House we look at the overall picture. We want to win the battle not just individual boardrooms boardroom by boardroom. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister completely failed to address any part of the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House is quite noisy so I will stand while I respond to that point of order. The dilemma I have in terms of trying to require a more precise answer from the Minister is that it is difficult for the Minister to give any particular answer to that kind of question because it is really seeking an opinion from her. The Minister is saying in answer that the Government looks at the issue differently. That is why I think there is no way I can intervene. I might also add that in fact that the Minister of Women’s Affairs has no ministerial responsibility for those individual boards. She has an overall interest as Minister of Women’s Affairs in women’s affairs across the spectrum and that is the way she is answering. I believe we are hearing reasonable answers. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: How can women and men stand shoulder to shoulder on Don Brash’s 2025 Taskforce when it consists of five men and only one woman? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: It just shows that one good woman is worth more than four men. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: And one woman is all we are going to get. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask members—[ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. I tell the Hon Paula Bennett that she knows she should be silent when I am on my feet. It is not reasonable to make too much noise when a member towards the back of the House is asking a question. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: How can men and women stand shoulder to shoulder on the new independent advisory group on national standards when it consists of four men and only one woman and when most of the teaching profession is female? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I am not too sure I can add to my last answer. All I can say is: good on those women who are out there showing the men the way. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: How does the Minister think the 12 percent pay gap between men and women will ever be closed when women have no voice on Government groups shaping the future of our economy our infrastructure and our education system? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I have very good news for that member. For 9 long years under the previous Labour Government there was a 12 percent pay gap which increased to 12.8 percent for the year ended June 2008. For the year ended June 2009 the pay gap had gone down to 11.3 percent. The National Government is working for women. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been called and the Minister of Housing will respect it. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: It has gone up to 13 percent. I seek leave to table the Red Bag Day bag with no money in it for women; my male colleagues are welcome to donate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will not be doing that and I just warn members that only the person speaking can use a visual prop. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister when she referred to the statistics showing that the pay gap had decreased was quoting from an official document and if so whether she might table that document under the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I beg the member’s pardon. Could the Hon Pansy Wong please clarify whether she was quoting from an official document. 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I was thinking I would seek your leave to table those statistics Mr Speaker but I did not think that you would allow it because they came from the annual New Zealand Income Survey prepared by Statistics New Zealand. The lazy Labour member cannot— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I warn the honourable member that the only reason why I am not going to deal with her more severely is that one might accuse me of picking on a woman member and I do not want to be accused of doing that. But I say to the Hon Pansy Wong that that comment is totally unacceptable. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take exception to the description the Minister just used. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Pansy Wong will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I withdraw that statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Minister the Hon Pansy Wong to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I apologise and withdraw. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on your ruling because in your ruling in respect of Ms Wong you suggested that members of this House—I suspect that is who you meant—would somehow take umbrage if you dealt with a member in relation to the fact she was a woman. I suspect that no one in this House Mr Speaker would have any conflict with you if you were to deal with members irrespective of their gender. This member attacked a Labour colleague who was not even asking the questions; the questions came from a member of another party. Regardless of what gender members are they should be disciplined and that is what we on our side of the House would expect. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No sense of humour. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet and the Leader of the House should know that. I believe that members should accept the comment I made in the spirit in which it was made—in the reasonably good humour of the House. But I also accept the offence taken by the member to whom the unnecessary comment the objectionable comment was directed. That is why I asked the Hon Pansy Wong to stand withdraw and apologise for it. I believe that that is now the end of the matter. 
Accident Compensation—Approvals for Elective Surgery 
6. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Can he explain why in the first 6 months of 2009 almost double the number of people applying for elective surgery under ACC were declined compared with the same period in 2008? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes. The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is quite properly being more thorough in ensuring that accident compensation levy payers fund surgery that is a result of an accident rather than of ageing or a degenerative process. This reflects that elective surgery costs have more than doubled over the last 5 years to $260 million. That is out of step with accident trends. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: When Wayne Direen in my electorate was viciously attacked on the streets of Christchurch and required elective surgery to his shoulder as a result of that attack why did ACC reject his application on the basis that he had a “prior condition to his shoulder” which reading the file is clearly ludicrous? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am not medically qualified to decide whether an accident has caused an injury that requires surgery but I note that the review of the gentleman’s case states that the medical evidence supports a finding that the shoulder injury was not the result of the assault but rather the result of a long-standing degenerative process. That matter is now subject to an appeal to the District Court so I am reluctant to comment further. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: How many elective surgery operations does ACC expect to fund this year and how does that compare with the number of applications for surgery? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Over 80 percent of claims for elective surgery are being approved and this year ACC will fund over 50000 elective surgery operations. I note that the number of elective surgery operations funded by ACC and the number funded by my colleague the Minister of Health both last year in 2009 and this year in 2010 are expected to be at record high levels. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: My office and the offices of other Christchurch MPs are being inundated with people complaining that they have been rejected by ACC because of non-existent prior conditions. Is this a pattern emerging across the country from a Government determined to cut accident compensation entitlements at any cost? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I reinforce for the member that 80 percent of claims are being approved. I am watching closely the results of reviews and if a trend emerges of medical evidence overturning the decisions of ACC I am prepared to relook at the issue. The evidence to date shows that those review decisions are upholding the decisions of ACC and that is not surprising when one sees that expenditure has more than doubled over the last 5 years. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table four papers. The first is an ACC case summary of a 39-year-old woman who twisted her knee in a motor vehicle accident and needed surgical repair and 1 week off week. She was declined coverage by ACC. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the document. Is there any objection? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Has the person given permission? Can the member clarify? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Minister. I understand that the Minister is seeking to raise a serious issue. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member is dealing with someone’s personal health issues. Could the member clarify that the person concerned has given consent for that information to be tabled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I presume it would have been. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: The name has been removed. These are details of the cases of individuals. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a document—in this case a file of a particular person with the name removed. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: The second paper I seek to table is an ACC case summary of a 60-year-old who fell and injured her shoulder was declined accident compensation cover and has now had to give up her job due to that injury. 
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 Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table the ACC case summary of a woman in her late 50s who fell and grabbed a rail causing a haemorrhage in her shoulder. She has been declined accident compensation cover. 
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 Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table the ACC case summary of an elderly woman who slipped on ice and cracked her elbow and was forced to use her own savings for private surgery after losing the use of her arm and being declined accident compensation cover. 
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. 
Animal Cruelty Offences—Preventive Measures 
7. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What steps is the Government taking to curb animal cruelty offences? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 This afternoon a major step will be taken with the first reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. This legislation builds on the very good work by the member asking the question Simon Bridges and will substantially strengthen the penalties for animal welfare offences. It sends a clear message that animal cruelty is unacceptable and complements the other animal welfare initiatives that this Government has under way. 
Simon Bridges 
: What are some of the specific measures in the bill aimed at reducing animal cruelty? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The bill is significantly wider than the original member’s bill. Its key measures include substantial increases in maximum sentences for animal welfare offences the creation of an entirely new animal welfare offence of “reckless ill-treatment” the toughening of a number of measures around the forfeiture of animals and the ability to disqualify people from owning animals. I would certainly hope that all parties in the House support this legislation to the select committee this afternoon. 
Sue Kedgley 
: When he says that all acts of animal cruelty are unacceptable does he consider institutional acts of cruelty to animals to be unacceptable such as the practice of keeping pigs and hens in cages or only individual acts of cruelty which are covered in this bill? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: As I have explained to that member on numerous occasions both inside this House and outside this House the issue of farming methods is covered by animal welfare codes and they are developed under the Act by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. 
Mining in Conservation Areas—Minister’s Statements 
8. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Does he stand by all his recent statements? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Assuming that the member and I agree on what “recent” means yes. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does the Minister stand by his comments yesterday in the 
 Press 
 that the decision to change the boundaries of the Oteake Conservation Park was not made at the behest of L and M Mining? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes. What I can tell the member is that L and M Mining I discovered made a submission on a discussion document published by the previous Government’s Minister of Conservation in which it did point out that it had an interest in that area. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Can he confirm to the House that he was advised by his department that: “The successful development of the Hawkdun project is contingent on L and M gaining access to the entire lignite resource.”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I had a discussion on this matter with the Minister of Conservation on 12 March 2009. I received a number of documents on that day. They were departmental documents; they were not representations from L and M Mining to me. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question specifically asked the Minister about advice he had received from his department not about other representations and it asked nothing about his meeting with the Minister of Conservation. If it is appropriate to put the question again I will but I would ask that the question be addressed. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I point out that the member’s question on the order sheet is incredibly general. For members to set down a very general question and then to expect the Minister to be able to answer very detailed questions about a particular application in my view goes beyond the bounds of what is good order in the House. 
Charles Chauvel 
: The Minister was able to begin his answer with a very specific reference to a date on which he had a meeting with another Minister. I think he is well prepared to answer the questions. As I said this was a specific question about advice received from the department. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the point made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith is a very fair point: that where members put down very broad primary questions it is then very difficult to expect a Minister to have the information to give a precise answer to supplementary questions that are much more specific. However the question that the member asked did not seem to be one that required specific technical information; it seemed that he was asking whether the Minister had received advice. It is possible that the Minister cannot recollect that but because of the concern about the fact that the Minister seemed to refer to discussion with another Minister rather than advice from officials the easiest way for me to sort this out is to allow the member to repeat his question. I would like it to be exactly the same question unchanged. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Was the Minister advised by his department that: “The successful development of the Hawkdun project is contingent on L and M gaining access to the entire lignite resource.”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I will give the same answer that I gave before. On 12 March I met with the Minister of Conservation to discuss that matter. I received on that day—or thereabouts; my office probably received them before I got them—a number of official documents relating to this matter. That could well have been some of the advice. I do not have a memory of that; I have a memory of the meeting. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does the Minister recall receiving any advice that was prefaced with the words: “L and M has advised” and does he stand by his statement: “We had no representation from L & M Mining. I want to make that very very clear.” 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My comment was made in relation to an allegation that L and M Mining had lobbied me directly. It did not. The company made a representation through the proper process which was set up by the previous Government’s Minister of Conservation. The allegation is made in a website blog which of course is run out of the third floor of Parliament Buildings by the Labour Party and is paid for by the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union. I have nothing to hide. I was not lobbied by the mining company. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was quite a confined one about whether the Minister recalled receiving a specific piece of advice. I think the answer has gone well wide of the mark. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that the answer went well wide of the mark but in fairness I say to Charles Chauvel on this occasion he asked for very specific information on a primary question that asked: “Does he stand by all his recent statements?”. I think it would be unreasonable to expect any Minister to be able to recollect some of the information that the member was seeking given that specific primary question. I think in fairness if a member wants to have that kind of specificity addressed in a supplementary question the primary question needs to be somewhat more specific than this one. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does the Minister recall receiving the advice to which I have alluded in my previous questions in a briefing dated 16 December 2008 and was this before the meeting that he requested with the Minister of Conservation to discuss the rezoning of the Oteake Conservation Park? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do not recall the exact timings of that at the present time. I can say to the member though that I have made no secret of the fact that I think New Zealand should make more of its mineral resources. I think the lignite deposits in Southland offer this country an extraordinary opportunity. I did lobby the Minister of Conservation to leave out 200 of the 70000 hectares that have gone into that conservation park. I did that because I think it is good for this country and I have nothing to hide. 
Hon Member 
: We don’t operate like you Charles. 
Charles Chauvel 
: And thank goodness for that Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not blame the member for saying that when one gets an interjection like that. It would be helpful not to interject quite so loudly. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Did the Minister meet with the Minister of Conservation in February 2009 after receiving the advice referred to in the previous questions to discuss the impact of the proposal to change the park boundaries on the Hawkdun lignite deposit; and was the area that was crucial for the Hawkdun project in fact the area that was excluded from the boundaries of the park when those new boundaries were announced by Tim Groser in April 2009? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No and yes. 
Hon Tim Groser 
: Does the Minister recall during the many conversations the two of us had as Ministers of the day that the burden of the advice we received was as follows: that there was almost no chance of this project being commercially viable and going ahead and that there were far more prospective areas that were more likely to go ahead but that the underlying issue was whether we are going to lock away for future generations the opportunity to revisit this or instead have a park of 64800 hectares rather than of 65000 hectares? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Was the Minister advised of any other commercial parties interested in the Hawkdun deposit; if not does he stand by his comments that the decision to change the boundaries of the Oteake Conservation Park was not made at the behest of L and M Mining? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I was not lobbied by any mining company with regard to that 200 hectare block. I was however lobbied by the Department of Conservation to drop my suggestion that it should be left out on the basis that if we were to realign the boundary the toilet block would be on the wrong side of the road. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Hon Annette King 
: You would have had to walk too far Gerry! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s own colleague has called a point of order. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Bearing in mind the previous comments about the breadth of the questions and answers I did ask very specifically whether the Minister was aware of any other commercial interests other than those of L and M Mining in the Hawkdun lignite deposit. I ask that the Minister address that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to be reasonable and to put himself in the place of the Minister. If the Minister tried to answer that question and without having any preparation for the specific issue got it wrong he would be in some difficulty. I think it is only fair that where a member wants to be given that kind of specificity in response to a question the primary question should be somewhat clearer than this one is because it is unreasonable to expect Ministers to have that kind of information at their fingertips. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on that for two reasons. One is that I would have thought that that is within the purview of the Minister who is answering the question. If he feels that he does not have that information as you have rightly pointed out he can say he does not have it and sit down. Mr Brownlee has given quite a bit of information as the questions have flowed. Second I submit to you that the history of this place when both parties were on the reverse sides of the Chamber of their current ones is that there has been a long-standing tradition that members of Parliament ask very general questions and that has never really been appealed against until this Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And there has also been— 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Speaking to the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —I am on my feet—a longstanding practice unless the member’s memory is very short that Ministers have got away without answering questions at all. On this occasion a question was asked and the Minister answered it. The member asking the question was not happy with the answer and sought my assistance. I have declined to give further assistance because of the nature of the question asked and the nature of the primary question. That is the end of the matter. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table a document and I want to be able to read the entire description of the document. It is longer than normal because it establishes the provenance of the advice. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As long as the member is not seeking to read the entire document when describing it. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table page 4 of a briefing paper to the Minister from his department dated 16 December 2008 paragraph 16 of which begins “L and M has advised … ” and paragraph 17 of which advises that “The successful development of the Hawkdun project”—[ 
Interruption 
] This is a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The reason why there is difficulty is that member is trying to go beyond simply describing the document. The document is a briefing document to the Minister. Leave is sought to table that document on these matters. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to give a clarification because we do not want to block the tabling of documents like that. It was a departmental document not lobbying from a mining company. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is now getting very untidy. I ask the member to resume his seat for the moment. Leave was sought to table a document and the member obtained it. The description of the document was that it was part of a briefing document to the Minister. On that basis the House accepted it. If it is anything other than a briefing document from the Minister’s department I ask the member to just clarify that. 
Charles Chauvel 
: That is quite right and for the Minister’s benefit— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No all I asked the member to do was to just clarify that it was a document from the Minister’s department. 
Resource Consents—Process 
9. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What steps is the Government taking to improve the efficiency of processing resource consents? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The Government is introducing financial incentives for councils to process resource consents in a more timely way. The policy will work by requiring councils to discount their Resource Management Act fees when they breach the statutory timelines and by increasing the discount in relation to how late the consent is. Today the Government released drafts of the incentives and the rules of the policy so we can consult local government businesses and others so that the regulations can be in place on 1 July. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Is the Minister aware of the huge frustration for thousands of New Zealanders who get penalised if they pay their rates late but have to put up with councils completely ignoring statutory timeframes on their resource consent applications? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I acknowledge that there is huge frustration and a high cost to the New Zealand economy from inefficient resource consent processes. I note that in 2000 21 percent of consents were late or required extensions and this figure got progressively worse until 2008 when 59 percent of consents were taking longer than the statutory 20 working days. I am confident that this policy change will reverse this trend and get resource consents processed more efficiently. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: In relation to the call-in decision recently announced over the Mackenzie Country agricultural project how does he believe that consent allocation process will be efficient given that the organisation designed to deal with call-in has not been fully developed or revealed to the public? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Environmental Protection Authority was established as part of the first phase of the Government’s Resource Management Act reforms. The Environmental Protection Authority is perfectly able to function and to deal with the management of boards of inquiry and to deal with national consenting. I am very confident that when consents go through the national process they will not take as long as they did—in some cases over a decade—during the term of the previous Government. 
Gender Equality—Report to United Nations 
10. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Women’s Affairs 
: What highlights if any on gender equality and women’s empowerment will she report to the United Nations special general meeting in March? 
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 I am surprised that the Labour spokesperson for women’s affairs has not read the New Zealand Government’s response—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In fairness the question simply asked what highlights if any on gender equality and women’s empowerment she will report to the United Nations special general meeting in March. It is not an excuse for the Minister to be surprised about anything that Labour might be doing. It is asking what the Minister is planning to do. To deviate from telling the House what the Minister is planning to do is to treat the House with some contempt. 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: The highlights etc. are contained in the New Zealand Government’s response to the United Nations questionnaire on gender equality and women’s empowerment October 2009. I would seek leave of the House to table this 19-page document but I know you would disallow it Mr Speaker because it is publicly available. The member can go to www.un.org\womenwatch. 
Sue Moroney 
: Will she report that last year 27000 women lost their jobs in New Zealand that 60 percent of the newly jobless are women and that she stood by while her Government axed the pay and employment equity unit? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: Unfortunately the period covered is the last 10 years so the recent occurrence of the recession is just on the edge of that report. That is why our Prime Minister the Hon John Key has placed so much focus on economic growth in his Prime Minister’s statement. Part of that unemployment figure was due to the growing workforce because the number of jobs has not decreased significantly. 
Sue Moroney 
: Will she then report that now New Zealand is out of recession her Government will reinstate pay equity investigations for school support staff and for social workers which her Government axed last year because of the recession? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: The National Government does not operate in looking through a rear vision mirror. We forge forward. The Ministry of Women’s Affairs got $2 million over 4 years to construct four work streams that will absolutely take our women forward not backwards as would happen under Labour. 
Sue Moroney 
: Was she so desperate to claim any achievement for women under her Government that she instructed her officials to report to the United Nations— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A member cannot ask a question with that sort of inflammatory material at the front of it. The Standing Orders are very clear just as you were with the Minister about ensuring that answers are straightforward; that member equally needs to follow the same Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Again I think the Minister has raised a reasonable point that although the language was not in itself objectionable the assertion that a Minister might have been desperate is not an acceptable way to start a question. I invite the member to reword that question. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why has she instructed her officials to report to the United Nations that paid parental leave was extended to 14 weeks in 2009 when in fact that happened in 2005 under Labour and National voted against it? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: Unlike Labour we never instruct our officials. They do their research and they put it forward objectively. We do not instruct for any cover-up unlike Labour. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table a document from the New Zealand Government’s response to the UN questionnaire showing that it has reported to the United Nations— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the New Zealand response to that questionnaire. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table a document from the Business and Professional Women of New Zealand on Red Bag Day 18 February 2010. This is the document— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me be very clear: is this a press release? 
Sue Moroney 
: No it is a fact sheet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table a document showing that the male-female wage gap has gone from— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume her seat. The practice that the member has just adopted is unacceptable. She should describe what the document is before she goes into a lengthy diatribe about what is in it so that the House at least hears what the document is. 
Sue Moroney 
: This is from the Parliamentary Library a statistical bulletin on salary and wage rates. I note that the Minister said that she would table a document— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a statistical release from our own library? 
Sue Moroney 
: It is a statistical bulletin from the Parliamentary Library research— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is available to all members. We will not seek leave to documents that all members have. 
Sue Moroney 
: No it is not available to all members. One has to ask for it to be researched. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to establish whether this document is a document provided in response to a request from the member to the library. 
Sue Moroney 
: Yes it has been provided on a request from a member. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. 
Sue Moroney 
: It is a statistical bulletin salary and wage rates showing that in 2008 the male-female wage gap was 13.8 percent and in 2009 it was 14.8 percent. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There was too much noise while a point of order was being heard and I could not hear whether there was any objection. I will put the leave again. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Youth Parliament 2010—Progress 
11. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Youth Affairs 
: What progress has been made for Youth Parliament 2010? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 The planning is coming together for this year’s Youth Parliament. It will be the fifth one since the event began in 1994 and it will involve the talents of 122 Youth MPs and 10 budding press journalists who will work in select committees and debate in this very Chamber. Selections are now open and I encourage young people to get hold of their local MPs. 
Nikki Kaye 
: How will this year’s Youth Parliament differ from those of previous years? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It will be value for money. In 2007 this event cost taxpayers nearly $430000. In 2010 it will cost $110000 which is a quarter of the previous Youth Parliament budget. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—Strategic Priorities 
12. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does he agree with the strategic priorities of ACC which include “Ensuring New Zealanders have confidence in ACC”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Absolutely. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Does he expect that the 30-year-old man who was raped and beaten as an 8-year-old and who first approached a counsellor in March 2009 will be feeling confident when he still does not know whether he can receive treatment funded by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC)? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: On the individual case I am not able to give the member a response but I would note that I am loath to interfere in clinical decisions about those who are eligible for counselling under accident compensation law. I would also note that it was in fact the previous Government that started the review of the sensitive claims process that has led to the changes that the member constantly raises. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Does he expect that the young woman who was raped last year and who has had to reveal her assault separately to two therapists will be feeling confident when her case has still not been decided by ACC? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Again I would say that for a member to raise cases in the House and to expect an answer from me when I have absolutely no details about them and when there are 1.6 million claims for accident compensation each year is not reasonable. It shows that the member is doing nothing more than political grandstanding rather than being genuinely concerned about the condition of the claimant. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Does the Minister think that the victims and survivors of sexual abuse have confidence that his experiment on them which started on 27 October 2009 will be stopped after 6 months— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders are very clear that a member is not to make incorrect assertions in questions. To assert that I am experimenting with women who have sensitive claims or with sexual abuse claimants is I think offensive and is not required in terms of the information the member is seeking. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister has raised a perfectly fair point of order. This matter covers sensitive issues and I ask members on both sides of the House to be mindful of that in their wording. 
Lynne Pillay 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has actually said there— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Lynne Pillay 
: It is a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the member had not been acknowledged for a point of order. I had called her for a supplementary question. If she is calling for a point of order I will hear her point of order. 
Lynne Pillay 
: The Minister has said that the new pathway will be reviewed in 6 months’ time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That has nothing to do with the order of the House. The member is seeking to debate an issue. The point of order raised by the Hon Nick Smith related to an assertion that the Minister was experimenting on people. That was unacceptable language. I ask the member to reword her question. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Does the Minister think that victims and survivors of sexual abuse have confidence that his new accident compensation pathway which has been set in place for a 6-month period will be stopped after those 6 months; and why are counsellors still waiting to see the terms of reference for the review or will they be shut out of that as well? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The first thing I want to make plain to the House is that decisions about sensitive claims have been made not by me as Minister or by Cabinet or by the Government but by highly qualified clinical specialists who I think should make the decisions in areas such as this. It is true that concern has been raised by some counsellors about the new pathway. As a consequence I have said that there will be an independent clinical review of ACC’s processes for dealing with sensitive claims. It is my intention to work with ACC to ensure that the clinicians on that panel are well qualified to provide the claimants and all New Zealanders with an assurance that what ACC is doing in this area is in the best interests of those claimants. 
Lynne Pillay 
: How many sexual abuse psychotherapists counsellors victims and survivors have been interviewed in respect of the 6-month review of the new accident compensation pathway or is it simply a paper-based sham? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The policy was introduced in November. By my basic calculations that means that the 6-month review will occur in April. The terms of reference and the review panel have not yet been determined but I would be happy to consult members of the Opposition about both the terms of reference and the personnel because I think all members would want to know that sensitive claimants are getting appropriate care from ACC. 
Question No. 10 to Minister 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that points of order are meant to be raised at the time when an event has happened but it has only just been brought to my attention that during question No. 10 the Minister of Women’s Affairs said that she or the Government had not instructed a cover-up like Labour had done. Obviously we take deep exception to the idea that our party or any party in Government orders a cover-up. If we are going to be able to question this Minister and put down proper questions we do not want these kinds of replies from her. It is a question of integrity. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member’s point. I must confess that I did not hear that comment in the Minister’s answer. As the concern has been raised the only thing I can do is ask the Minister whether she said that. 
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 I withdraw the statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister accused the other side of a cover-up I think she should probably withdraw and apologise for that and I ask the Hon Pansy Wong to do so. 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I am happy to do that but— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member will resume her seat. 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I apologise and withdraw. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is piling sin on sin here. When I ask members to stand withdraw and apologise they do just that and nothing else. I am deadly serious about it. I now ask the Hon Pansy Wong to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Let us have one standard for all. When all those members call out about me making things up— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is very lucky I am choosing to ignore that.