Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7343] 
Questions to Ministers 
Algerian Suspected Terrorist—Advice to Minister 
1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: At what time and what day was she first briefed on suspected terrorist Ahmed Zaoui’s arrival in New Zealand and how soon if at all after that time and date was New Zealand Immigration Service spokesperson Ian Smith first briefed on that matter? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I recall being given an oral briefing by telephone by the New Zealand Immigration Service on the matter on 6 December 2002 with the individual concerned having arrived on 4 December 2002. I am advised that the New Zealand Immigration Service’s spokesperson was alerted to the situation without full details at around the same time as he did not have a sufficiently high security clearance to receive a full briefing. That clearance was subsequently given and further details were provided to him. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could the Minister tell us why Mr Smith who was the senior Immigration Service spokesperson recorded the following: “I was let down badly. Everyone had agreed to lie in unison but all the others caved in and I was the only one left singing the original song.” and what does she know about that? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Obviously I cannot answer for him as to why he said it. I can say that he has apologised to me and has said that it was not an intention to say that anyone was lying about the matter. There was no agreement to lie and I accept his word for that. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Does the Minister stand by her statement regarding Mr Smith this morning to the Press Association that: “He didn’t actually answer the question untruthfully but on reflection he did know about Zaoui.”; if so is she asking the public to believe that it is pure coincidence that Mr Smith provided a completely incorrect answer to the media on 12 December only 5 days before writing in a memo “Everyone had agreed to lie in unison”? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The question I am advised that the journalist asked him was whether he was aware about somebody who had arrived the night before. He said no he would have been given information if that had been the case and he had not been given information. Today I have discovered that in fact Mr Smith was not given a full briefing on the matter. I knew more about the subject than he did because he did not have a high enough security clearance. 
Keith Locke 
: Has not the unreasonable secrecy around the detention of Mr Zaoui and the over-the-top security measures against him been the product of an anti-terrorist hysteria largely generated out of the United States; and will the Minister agree to abide by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority decision if it grants him refugee status? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Part of that question was not in order. The Minister may comment if she wishes but part of that question was not in order in relation to the Standing Orders. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister in respect of the comment by Mr Smith that: “Everyone agreed to lie in unison” what role she played in that agreement to lie bearing in mind that in explaining this matter away she and two other immigration officials have now used the same word in describing Mr Smith’s comments in that they have been claimed to be “flippant”? What role did she play in the agreement to lie? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: There was no agreement to lie. I spoke to the general manager of the Immigration Service last night once I became aware that the media were interested in this. I was not aware of the document until that time that the media raised it with me. I was not aware of the commentary that he had attached to it. Mr Smith was at the other end of the phone with the general manager. He advised me that the comments were flippant. He apologised profusely for having made those comments and was mortified that it had become the subject of media attention. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did the Minister make this claim back in December of last year: “The fact that he was picked up represents the security system working well”; is part of that security system an agreement for everyone—as Mr Smith said—to lie and what responsibility will she take for that? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: There was no agreement to lie. I received advice from the director of security that there were security concerns and that nothing further could be said publicly and that it had been agreed by agencies concerned that the only public comment would come from me as Minister of Immigration. This was after 13 December. 
Algerian Suspected Terrorist—Newspaper Coverage 
2.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Why did a New Zealand Immigration Service spokesman write in a memo relating to newspaper coverage of the detention of suspected Algerian terrorist Ahmed Zaoui that “I was let down badly. Everyone had agreed to lie in unison but all the others caved in and I was the only one left singing the original song.”; and who was party to this agreement? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The comment was added to a media log prepared by the Immigration Service media adviser in response to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 editorial which is referred to in the log. There was no agreement to lie in unison or otherwise. There can be no party to an agreement that does not exist. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: How does the Minister reconcile her statement to the Press Association this morning that Mr Smith had answered the question truthfully but the journalist had got the week of Zaoui’s detention wrong with Mr Smith’s very clear statement to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on 12 December 2002 that: “Normally if there is anything untoward they would let me know and I haven’t heard anything.”? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As I understand it the question that was put to him by the journalist was about a person who had supposedly arrived the night before. Mr Zaoui had not arrived the night before; he had arrived the week before. Today I have discovered that Mr Smith did not have as much information as I did because he did not have a sufficiently high security clearance to receive it at the time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Who are we to believe: a person who said “I was let down badly. Everyone had agreed to lie in unison but all the others caved in and I was the only one left singing the original song.” and who 6 days later after his briefing advised a leading New Zealand paper that he had no knowledge of this person who has arrived in this country or the Minister given that there is no reason for Mr Smith to lie? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The Immigration Service has issued a statement today clarifying that very matter. There was no agreement to lie. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: If this matter was not the subject of some prearranged management plan why did Mr Smith advise her as reported immediately after receiving a call from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and why did she personally ring the  
New Zealand Herald 
 back later? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As has been reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 this morning I was conducting the office Christmas function for all of my departments. I had people in my office from the Immigration Service the Ministry of Education the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Economic Development. All of those people were enjoying a celebration of the forthcoming Christmas. At that point the phone call was received while he was actually in my office. He completed the conversation. He and I had a conversation. I seem to recall that the reporter from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 asked to speak to me about the particular matter. I have it in my diary that I was to contact her on my way to the airport. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When Mr Smith said: “I was let down badly. Everyone had agreed to lie in unison but all the others caved in and I was the only one left singing the original song.” what about those comments; and anyway the circumstances in which they are written suggest that he was making a flippant comment which is her now present explanation for this alarming state of affairs? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: If there had been an agreement to lie then that would be a most serious matter. I reassure the House that there was no agreement to lie. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Is the Minister asking the House to believe that it was pure coincidence that Mr Smith provided an incorrect answer—which would be regarded by any dispassionate observer as a lie—on 12 December only 5 days before writing in a memo: “Everyone had agreed to lie in unison”? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I think I have explained to the member more than once that the question he was asked was about somebody who had allegedly arrived the night before. What I said is that the answer was technically correct. It was a truthful answer. There was no one who had arrived the night before. It is splitting hairs. I accept that there is no requirement on anyone to not provide truthful information to the media. I do make truthful statements to the media and I spoke to the  
New Zealand Herald  
reporter that night and indeed the next day as well. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister remember in similar circumstances where the Immigration Service was involved blaming her officials and saying that she was seriously let down; how does she explain that Mr Smith wrote these comments after he had spoken to the Minister of Immigration—namely herself—and why should we believe therefore her statement in this House today? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The statement that has come out from the Immigration Service today makes it absolutely clear that the individual concerned was not referring to any agreement to lie. There was no agreement to lie. As I have already advised the House the day following that particular function I received advice from the director of security that there were security concerns and nothing more than that could be said publicly and that it had been agreed by all the agencies concerned that the only public comment would come from me as Minister of Immigration. That was the only agreement. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister tell this House now—having got that out—why did Mr Smith write the memo were he not deadly serious about its content; and why does she expect anyone in this House or in the country to believe her explanation now? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have already explained to the House that I cannot say why Mr Smith wrote that particular comment. I cannot say what was in his mind at the time other than to reflect on the fact that the  
New Zealand Herald  
editorial had been very very hard on him and that he has no ability as a public servant to respond. 
Rodney Hide 
: In the light of her answers is the House to understand that Mr Smith was not telling the truth when he wrote: “Everyone had agreed to lie in unison” in which case what does the Minister make of his writing that? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The Immigration Service has put out a statement saying that Mr Smith acknowledges the words were ill-chosen but emphasises they were not meant to be taken seriously. The service refutes any suggestion the remark was intended to imply that the service or other agencies were lying about Mr Zaoui. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We sat patiently through that. That was not answering my question. I asked a direct question: “Was that statement truthful?”. It is all very well to hear what the Immigration Service had to say about it. The Minister was asked a direct question: are we to take it that when he wrote: “Everyone had agreed to lie in unison” that that was a “not true” statement? The Minister not once addressed my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought I would say this to be helpful to the Minister. In reply to Mr Hide’s answer the Minister read out a statement from the Immigration Service which if she looks at it clears everybody except herself. Are we to take note of that fact? It is basically saying that Mr Smith was not lying and the agencies were not lying. It does not say anything about whether the Minister was lying who I understand was the only person saying anything. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member is making a political point of order. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that if she discovers that any official or person in her office has been engaged in an arrangement either individually or with others to lie over this matter she would expect heads to roll? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have made it very clear that I would expect heads to roll if there was an agreement to lie. There was no agreement to lie. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Minister take disciplinary action against Mr Smith if his comments: “I was let down badly. Everyone had agreed to lie in unison but all the others caved in and I was the only one left singing the original song.” were not true but if they are true will she take action against him and all those other officials who were involved and perhaps offer her resignation seeing that he suggested that the Minister was involved as well? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I was waiting for the request for me to resign; I have been expecting it for ages from that member. The issue that the member raises is a question as to whether the comments that have been made were anything other than ill chosen which is the expression that has been used by the Immigration Service. The bottom line is that there was no agreement to lie. I have no power to take disciplinary action in respect of staff members of the Immigration Service. That is a matter for the general manager and the chief executive of the Department of Labour. 
Tertiary Education Strategy—Government Assistance 
3.  
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What assistance has the Government put in place to help tertiary education organisations to achieve the aims of the tertiary education strategy? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 I am announcing today the criteria and timetable for a $78 million package of funding to support innovation and e-learning in tertiary education. There are three elements to this. The first is $40 million over 4 years for a contestable innovation and development fund; $28 million over 4 years for an e-learning collaborative development fund; and $9.8 million to support an e-learning portal and a tertiary education portal phase 1 of which is now live. Applications for the first $34 million of these funds open on Monday. 
Helen Duncan 
: In what ways will these new funds support the aims of the tertiary education strategy? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: These funds ensure that tertiary education organisations will be able to undertake a range of new activities such as a consortia of institutions setting up a shared e-learning infrastructure out of the ordinary costs associated with new course development to meet regional skill needs and start-up support for an industry training organisation new skills forecasting and industry leadership role. This complements the lift in funding that this Government has ensured over the past four Budgets including a 10 percent increase in funding rates and $80 million extra for the performance-based research fund. 
Simon Power 
: What action has the Government taken within the tertiary education strategy to assist students attending tertiary education organisations when the promised review of student support has no release date and the level of student debt has just passed $6 billion? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It does not take a rocket scientist to know that new students come out of school each year; they borrow and therefore their loan debt goes up. 
 Can I just list in response to the question a large number of things this Government has done—namely interest off loans; freezing of fees; freezing of interest; investment in Student Job Search which resulted in the highest number of jobs available to students ever; stand-down period removed for people who are with children during the period between study and so on. That position contrasts with the fact that I have not heard one single policy from that person who represents the National Party. 
Regulations—Effect on Business 
4.  
Dr DON BRASH (NZ National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Commerce 
: Does he agree that the costs which Government regulations impose on the business sector have increased since 1999 and are hindering growth in the economy; if not why not? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 No because this Government is showing greater dedication to reducing compliance costs than its predecessors did. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why then does the 
 Economic Freedom of the World: 2003 
Annual Report 
 show that New Zealand’s rating for administrative obstacles for new businesses fell from 7.5 points out of 10 in 2000 to 3.5 points out of 10 in 2001? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: If the member cared to read on he would find the  
2003 
 I 
ndex of Economic Freedom 
 published by the Heritage Foundation and the  
Wall Street Journal 
 ranks New Zealand third in the world in terms of economic freedom—third. New Zealand’s score has improved from 1.85 points in 1998 to 1.7 points in 2002. I say the lower the better. Australia ranks ninth with a score of 1.85 points. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What steps is the Government taking to further reduce compliance costs? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The Government is committed to reducing compliance costs to the extent that it is implementing 80 percent of the recommendations of the business compliance cost panel which represent at least 95 percent of the potential benefits from compliance cost reductions. That panel was chosen from business people not policy boffins out of the Business Roundtable. We have released a discussion document on tax simplification for small businesses and rolled out the BIZinfo portal—a one-stop shop for business information on Government regulations that has been very well received by Kiwi businesses. The key to our programme of reducing compliance costs is to actively listen to businesses not to presume to know best and not to assume that the big end of town represents the heartland of Kiwi businesses. 
Dr Don Brash 
: If the Government has been as successful in reducing business compliance costs as the Minister suggests why does the National Bank’s small business monitor survey always find that regulation is the most important problem facing small business? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: We are grateful to the National Bank and others for informing our policy development process. The member can be commended for identifying and adding to that and I say we can be trusted in resolving those issues for small business. 
Students—Achievement Levels 
5.  
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What is the Government doing to improve the achievement levels of all students at school? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The Government is committed to focusing on quality teaching as a key to lifting students’ achievement. I have today released best-evidence research that will be an important resource for teachers as it shows what actually works for students and makes a difference to learning. The project brings together research from within New Zealand and to a limited extent internationally all of which is based on measured improvements in student outcomes rather than on particular ideological or theoretical models. 
Mark Peck 
: What is the key finding from that research? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The best-evidence research shows that within the education system the quality of teaching in an individual classroom as opposed to between schools or to factors such as curriculum resources or the environment is what makes the most difference. We currently spend about $120 million a year on a wide variety of professional development and advisory services. We are now analysing that expenditure with the aim of realigning it with the research so that it reinforces what we now know makes a real difference for students. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What is the use of all the quality teaching in schools if thousands of our students are not there and the Government has frozen funding for the Truancy Service not prosecuted a single parent despite over 4400 having been reported to the truancy service and now missed two deadlines on reports that were to provide for a proper tracking system for students? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: One of the things that this Government learns—and just watching people in the Opposition shows us—is that turning up is not enough. Engagement is important. That member’s ideological approach to teacher education and to in-service education made a mess of the system and as a result of that student engagement in New Zealand is a lot poorer than it should be. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: What is the Government doing to enhance the achievement levels of school-age children who are not in school attendance because of bunking condoned absences and non-enrolment; or is the Minister happy simply to leave it up to the police to round those students up? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In fact one of the best projects that is occurring in New Zealand—with quite a lot of resource and led by my other ministry the State Services Commission—has the police as the lead agency. That is the circuit-breaker team in Rotorua which has shown enormous success in getting kids back to school. I do not want them back at school just for the sake of being at school; I want them there to learn. That is what this research is about. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: In the light of the fact that attendance is absolutely essential to student achievement why is the establishment of a national database to track children’s attendance at school not expected to be piloted until 2005 when it was part of Labour’s manifesto for the 1996 1999 and 2002 elections? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think I might have to take advice on that question but my understanding is that in fact it was not part of the 2002 pre-election policy. 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. 
Police—Resourcing 
6.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Given his statement in question time last week in relation to police resourcing that “The Government put the money in and the police ended up not spending all the money that they were given” is he saying that the police have been given all the resources they need to fight crime and if there is any shortfall it is the police’s fault; if not why did he say this? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I have never laid fault on the police. The police are doing an excellent job of catching criminals and keeping our community safe. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Why did the Minister not say to the House that 80 percent of the police budget is human resources and that the real reason the police did not use all the resources that Parliament voted for them is that last year they were 140 police short and that as such he as the Minister of Police is responsible because he cancelled not one not two but three police intakes? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have never cut any intakes. I do not have the authority to do that; it is the job of other people. But I want to say that the police had an unaudited surplus of $9.77 million last year in the year before a $1.082 million surplus and in 2000-01 a surplus of $1.723 million. That compares with 1999-2000 when there was a deficit of $74 million. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Has the Minister read any reports recommending optimum police numbers? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yes. In a recent letter to the Prime Minister Muriel Newman—a doctor of mathematical education—stated that New Zealand needed 6.8 billion more police. She said: “We would require a further 1700 sworn police officers per head of population.” 
Richard Worth 
: In the context of the surplus that has been generated is he not concerned about the statement of a senior police officer in the  
Dominion Post 
 today that: “The level of service we’re providing to the public is embarrassing. It’s dangerous and somebody is going to get hurt.” 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: When people take things out of context I always get worried. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes just reflecting on that answer I would like the Minister to develop it a bit further. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I do not know in what context that was taken but I am sure that most of the police in New Zealand are very satisfied. After all they have just had a salary settlement for the next 3 years. 
Ron Mark 
: When the Minister tells the nation that the police have all the resources they need to fight crime and implies that the shortfall is their fault is he saying that the failure of the police to secure from this Government 169 extra police as they requested in these documents and the three methamphetamine teams that they did not get—they received two—are the fault of the police too? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No I am not. What I am saying is that the member does not understand that that was a request for funding over 4 years and we have delivered the first part of it. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Through you in the interests of not misleading the House—because the facts in those documents are very very clear—I request that the Minister be asked to rethink that reply. It was not over 4 years; it was over 3 years as stated in those documents. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not relevant. That is not a matter for a point of order. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a matter for a point of order. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it not an offence to deliberately mislead this House on a statement of fact? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes it is and the member knows how to raise that with me. If he wishes to do so it will be thoroughly investigated. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: If the police are so happy with their resources can the Minister explain to the House why 1000 police and their families turned out in protest just before Christmas? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yes they turned out because they wanted an Auckland allowance. They are so happy that they settled their pay round for the next 3 years recently. 
Marc Alexander 
: Could the Minister explain whether the planned reduction in the Kilbirnie and Johnsonville rapid-response police units as an apparent consequence of officers being seconded to a new burglary unit is the result of the police not spending all the money they were given or is it because they have not been given sufficient resources to do both tasks? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: It is because the Wellington police see a need and they are answering it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: When the Minister implies that the police do have all the resources and have failed to spend them is he aware that in the Counties-Manukau Police District which covers his own electorate crime is up by 8 percent in the last year and is he aware of the statement made by Detective Sergeant Middleton who operates in the Minister’s own electorate that there is “a direct correlation that can be drawn between increased crime and staff shortages”; what is his response to Detective Sergeant Middleton’s statement about his own electorate? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The last time I saw Detective Sergeant Middleton he was very happy because we had just opened a $2 million police station in my own electorate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Perhaps the Minister could just develop the comment further on the question that was asked. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: There have been staff shortages; everyone knows that. The police have now upped their strength and also have English police officers working in the Counties-Manukau Police District. They have been welcomed by the whole community. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek to table Mr Hawkin’s answer to the identical question on methamphetamine teams last week which is totally at variance with his answer today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that statement. Is there any objection? There is. 
Genetically Modified Organisms—Local Government 
7.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: What discussions did he have with local authorities’ representatives at the local government conference over their desire to have a strong voice in decisions over the release of genetically modified organisms and what was the outcome of those discussions? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 None as I will be speaking at the Local Government New Zealand conference tomorrow. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does he agree with the leading British ecologist Professor David Bellamy who said in his speech to the local government conference that the Government would be foolhardy in the extreme and risk trashing 3.6 billion years of evolution if it releases genetically engineered (GE) organisms too soon? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: How will the views of local government be taken into account when the moratorium on the release of genetically modified (GM) organisms expires in October this year? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: When the moratorium expires the Environmental Risk Management Authority will be able to consider applications to release GM organisms on a case-by-case basis. Local authorities will have the ability to submit to the Environmental Risk Management Authority the views of their own communities on each case-by-case application. 
Jim Peters 
: Does the Minister accept the position that the total liability for any breach of conditions should lie with the applicant who is seeking the growth or development of a modified organism not with the consent authority; and will that be the position he will take tomorrow morning? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I do not have responsibility for the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill which addresses that question. For a more specific response the member should direct his question to the Minister for the Environment. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked a very precise question: where will the responsibility and liability lie—with local government or with the applicant—in the first instance? We are not asking a technical or scientific question. We are asking a question about local government liabilities and responsibilities which councils have been expressing concern about around the country. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member did answer that and said that it was not his responsibility but that of another Minister. That was his answer and it is an answer. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree that if local authorities after appropriate consultation with their communities identify GE-free farming as a desired community outcome that is consistent with the Local Government Act which requires councils to determine such community outcomes and to promote the social economic environmental and cultural well-being of their communities? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: When the Environmental Risk Management Authority determines on a case-by-case basis whether a GM activity should take place local authorities will have the ability to make a submission on that and to have their say. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Aside from having the ability along with every other New Zealander to make a submission to the Environmental Risk Management Authority will the Government be giving local government a specific role in making decisions about whether a GE crop can be grown commercially in its jurisdiction; if not will it exempt local government from any responsibility for monitoring compliance or for any role in cleaning up if a GE release were to go badly wrong; if not why not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Two of those three questions can be answered. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Again I reiterate that while I would be delighted to be responsible for environmental matters in this Parliament I am not. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What other commercial activities for private profit can central government impose on local authorities in their areas against the wishes of their communities? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have to say that as Minister of Local Government my office is besieged with letters from residents of New Zealand who feel that their views have not been listened to by local authorities. I also receive many letters from local authorities who feel constrained by Government actions so to answer the member’s question would take quite a lot of time. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Marine-farming Moratorium 
8.  
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: Is he going to extend the 2-year moratorium on new marine-farming consents in light of the submissions made by Maori over seabed and beach ownership; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 As I told the marine-farming industry last week my aim is to avoid any extension of the moratorium and I expect to know in a few weeks whether I will succeed. 
Phil Heatley 
: Does the Minister agree with members of the Iwi Aquaculture Steering Group which includes representatives of the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission who say in their submission to the Crown: “The rights of iwi are continuous. They extend well beyond the 12-mile zone and indeed beyond 200 miles in some cases.”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not sure whether I do. I am aware that Maori are large and competent operators in the wild fishery and have a very strong interest in aquaculture—as expressed recently in a round of hui. 
Janet Mackey 
: Have any new marine-farming projects been able to proceed under the moratorium? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes a large number. About 220 marine-farming consent applications have continued to advance through the normal process. In addition more than 150 marine farm projects which have already received consent are being accelerated through the fisheries permit process. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: As the Government has stated that the foreshore and seabed belong to all New Zealanders why is the Minister equivocating over the lifting of the moratorium? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not equivocating. It is a question of whether we can get the legislation written and through the House in time. It is complex legislation especially the transitionary clauses. I hope to have the bill introduced soon. If however there needs to be an extension of the moratorium I shall signal it clearly. What is more it will be measured in months not years. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister be certain that all regional councils will have aquaculture management areas defined in their coastal plans by the time the moratorium is due to expire; if not will he ensure that no new applications are heard in areas that do not have such aquaculture management areas until this essential planning provision is in place? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: From memory I think it is certain that not all regional councils will have aquaculture management areas in place although there are some transitionary aquaculture management areas—the precise technical name for which I have forgotten. My best guess is that all regional councils likely to receive applications will be ready to do so. But the member is right: that is an issue of ongoing work and of continued relationships in terms of checking on one another between the Ministry for the Environment and the regional councils. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: How confident is the Minister that there will not be further delay given that the legislation he is referring to is already about 15 months behind the original schedule; and what impact does he think the continuation of this moratorium is having on his previous estimate of $280 million per year growth potential for the aquaculture industry? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is a matter of fact that a significant backlog of current applications is still being processed. I mentioned them in response to an earlier supplementary question. I think the total is 370. So this is an industry that is hardly standing by twiddling its thumbs. On the other hand the Government’s intention was to introduce the legislation next month—my memory is that we were hoping to introduce it then. We may still introduce it next month. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Two years! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Two years is the length of time of the moratorium. We have been in the moratorium for about 16 months. If the member wants to know what a good long aquaculture moratorium looks he should look at National’s moratorium that was put in place in the early 1990s and is still there. 
Phil Heatley 
: Is the Minister currently horse-trading marine-farming space with Maori to secure Crown ownership because he agrees “that the seabed and the foreshore are owned by Maori and that this extends well beyond the 12-mile zone and indeed beyond 200 miles in some cases.”? Is that what the Minister believes? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Rather obviously no it is not. The member might like to reflect that the Court of Appeal decision to which his question refers is essentially based on English common law whereas the aquaculture issues and the round of hui that I mentioned earlier are a result of an approach by Maori to the Waitangi Tribunal under New Zealand law. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the submission to the Minister on the aquaculture reforms that he is entertaining about the 12-mile and 200-mile claim. 
Document laid on the Table of the House. 
Algerian Suspected Terrorist—Costs 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the member the Minister has advised me that she wishes to give a slightly longer answer than usual. 
9.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What is the total cost to date to the New Zealand taxpayer of suspected terrorist Ahmed Zaoui being in New Zealand? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I cannot give exact costs nor confirm details of any particular case. However I am advised that the average daily cost for a maximum security prisoner is $165 which would amount to $38775. I cannot confirm any matters relating to refugee status claims under the Immigration Act. Generally speaking legal aid is available in such cases with an average cost of $2286 for a first-level defended hearing plus $2460 for an appeal. In addition there would be a cost associated with the hearing and the appeal to the New Zealand Immigration Service of an estimated $16305 making the total cost close to $60000. The member will be aware that in certain circumstances the cost of custody may be recuperated from the airline that brought to New Zealand someone who was not granted a permit at the border. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Has the Minister seen media reports today regarding the detention of Mr Zaoui in which the Minister the general manager of the Immigration Service and the spokesman for the service all quite separately describe an internal memorandum on Mr Zaoui as “flippant” and can she explain to the House that remarkable coincidence? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I know for a fact that Mr Smith discussed this matter with the general manager when the general manager raised it. It is certainly Mr Smith’s view of the matter that his comments were indeed flippant. As I have said to the House on several occasions there was no agreement to lie and no such agreement could exist. 
Education and Economic Development—Rural Areas 
10.  
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Rural Affairs 
: How is the Government supporting education and economic development in rural New Zealand? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Acting Minister for Rural Affairs) 
: 
 Last week my good colleagues Jim Anderton and Trevor Mallard announced the launch of high-speed Internet access in the Waikato Taranaki and Kapiti-Horowhenua regions. It is the first step in bringing broadband coverage to rural New Zealand. Eight other regions will follow in the next few months including the West Coast Otago Manawatu the Bay of Plenty the Greater Auckland area Canterbury Nelson-Tasman-Marlborough and Gisborne - Hawke’s Bay. 
Darren Hughes 
: Why does the Minister believe that the broadband initiative will be of use to people in provincial and rural New Zealand? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Broadband coverage will create great opportunities for small businesses schools and pupils in rural communities. They will have access to banking business services and Government agencies over the Internet as well as having a wealth of information at their fingertips. For rural schools it will mean that pupils have access to a wider range of subject choices. Some of the most isolated places in New Zealand will be able to receive teaching in specialist subjects and teachers will have access to digital resources and online professional development. 
Shane Ardern 
: How can the Government claim that it is supportive of rural areas when under it there are wholesale closure and review of rural schools right across New Zealand as well as very poor Internet connection right across New Zealand as well as massive job losses in rural New Zealand areas like Taranaki in a couple of its major industries right at the moment? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: There are a few questions in there; I will attempt to answer two of them. Firstly in relation to broadband coverage Project Probe is addressing that as I explained in my first answer. The second one is that the Government’s school review policy is about ensuring sustainable quality education for local children. The savings from any closures and mergers are returned to the local communities. For example the Taieri review merger proposal could unlock about $9 million for that community. The school network review process could be triggered by roll numbers demographic change a school’s education or financial performance or often at the request of the local community. 
Metiria Turei 
: Can the Minister explain perhaps in better detail what use the investment of what has been described as tens of millions of dollars in this infrastructure is when his colleague the Minister of Education is undertaking a number of school network reviews closing schoolhouses and reducing the capacity for school transport which will seriously undermine the viability of rural areas and will discourage families from living in and relocating to rural communities thereby wasting the millions of dollars of investment? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s question was too long but the Minister may comment. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: This Government is not cutting back in any of those areas. We are however reviewing some of those areas including school housing and school buses to make sure that the best use of resources is made by those rural schools and that the Government is in a position to reinvest that money back where it belongs: in quality education for rural school children. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the record list of rural school closures by this Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that list. Is there any objection? There is. 
Local Government—Auckland Review 
11.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: When he said in the House last Thursday “we are working with the local government sector to identify upcoming infrastructure costs and whether additional funding tools are necessary.” does that work include the promised review of the total local government system in Auckland and what progress has been made on that review? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 The Government has not promised a review of the total local government system in Auckland. It is reviewing the Auckland-specific provisions in the Local Government Act 1974 that relate to the Auckland regional growth strategy Infrastructure Auckland and Watercare Services Ltd. Draft terms of reference are being developed. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Why has it taken 8 months since last year for him even to get to draft terms of reference and why is he not treating the issue with urgency given that there has been a 34 percent increase in Auckland Regional Council rates with another 18 percent increase in the future; or is this Minister not on top of his job? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Government passed the Local Government Act the most comprehensive review of local government in New Zealand since 1989 in December last year. We said at that time that this year we would be reviewing provisions relating to Auckland. As that member being an Auckland member would know dealing with Auckland issues is complex and delicate. 
Mike Ward 
: Does the Minister not think that the Auckland Regional Council provides a vital mechanism for protecting the Auckland people and environment from the orchestrated and frequently parochial demands of the city’s mayors for more roads? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: This question was raised with me last week in the House. I said at that time that local authorities set their own rates and are accountable for them. I stand by that statement. I remind the House that there appears to be divided opinions on the Auckland Regional Council rating among Auckland mayors. I am not surprised about that. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Does the Minister consider it appropriate that average Auckland Regional Council ratepayers are confronting a 34 percent increase in property tax principally to pay for public transport that they will never use and if he does think that is appropriate could he explain why? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I do not think it is appropriate that I comment on the territorial authority’s setting of rates but I note in this House that I am surprised that the ACT party has taken this position as businesses on the North Shore of Auckland have had a substantial drop in their Auckland Regional Council levy. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked this Minister a specific question—whether he thought the increase was appropriate. His reply was that he did not think it was appropriate for him as Minister to reply. Last week in the House he told us that that was his responsibility as Minister. Which way does he want it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is making a political statement. The Minister’s answer did address the question although the member might not agree with it. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Will the Minister’s review of local government funding consider removing GST charges from rates revenue—a tax on a tax raised by councils—in order to alleviate funding pressure; if not why not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The United Future party raised this question last week. I have discussed the matter with my officials and I am advised that there are a number of issues relating to GST in the new Local Government (Rating) Act. I will send that party a letter on that issue very shortly. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: How will the review of the Auckland-specific provisions in the Local Government Act be undertaken? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Government will work cooperatively with Auckland’s local authorities on this matter. Central government officials and Auckland Regional Council officers are already engaged in preliminary work to develop draft terms of reference for the review. 
Rodney Hide 
: As Minister of Local Government does he accept any responsibility for the rate rises in Auckland; if not why not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I repeat my earlier words to this House: local authorities set their own rates and they are accountable to their ratepayers for them. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I seek leave to table the Minister’s reply from last week when he outlined his responsibilities as Minister of Local Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those replies. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Auckland Regional Council—Rates 
12.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his claim that the Auckland Regional Council would be “wise” to review the formula used to calculate rates; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I did not comment on the formula. I suggested that the Auckland Regional Council might have been wise to consider phasing in the changes more slowly if that were possible. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister support the view expressed by his colleague Jim Anderton at yesterday’s local government conference that the nature of the Auckland Regional Council rates rise was fully justified; if so how does he reconcile that with his own view? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that this represents to some extent a catch-up related in large part to public transport. However overlaid with that are issues of shifts from land value to capital value rating and shifts out a responsibility being levied by the local territorial authorities which means a move away from relatively large business differentials to much larger differentials something I would have thought that most parties in the House would support as a general move. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: Is the Government planning any moves to ease the burden of rates on lower income and elderly ratepayers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. In the context of next year’s Budget we are considering raising the threshold for rates relief in the Local Government Act. It has not been raised for more 20 years. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is the Minister concerned to hear that local body rates are now rising so rapidly—no doubt in part because of the costs imposed by his Government’s Local Government Act—that the Governor of the Reserve Bank felt he had to warn local authorities that this rapid increase in rates posed inflationary risks and could require monetary policy to be tighter than would otherwise be the case? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not surprised at those comments. Governors of Reserve Banks around the world tend to unburden themselves in very similar fashion. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Why did the Minister tell Paul Holmes yesterday on radio that: “The North Shore has had a 9:1 load against business on the rates whereas the Auckland Regional Council doesn’t” and does he stand by his statement as being a truthful one? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It was certainly truthful but it was incorrect. I have since been better informed and I understand that the differential is more in the region of 2 to 3:1 but I would still argue that very few local authorities should apply a differential of that size on the business sector. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister agree with Christchurch Mayor Garry Moore who said in reference to the Auckland Regional Council rates increases that Aucklanders were just whingeing about nothing when other regions are already forced to subsidise Auckland’s transport woes and would not inter-regional relations be better served by returning more of the fuel excise tax to the regions where it is raised? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sure that if we returned more of the fuel excise tax local authorities would find even more to argue about in terms of how that was delivered between them. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can the Minister confirm that when GST was introduced the Labour caucus was divided over whether it should apply to rates because it is a tax on a tax and will he revisit that issue in the interests of alleviating the position of ratepayers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Indeed I can confirm that the motion passed by one vote. The then senior whip summoned the leader down to participate in the vote to make sure that it was passed. However we all learn from experience and the then senior whip now supports the retention of GST on rates. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The second part of my question asked whether the Minister would revisit that issue in the interests of alleviating rates. I do not believe he addressed that part of the question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I was the then senior whip who did the summoning. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek of the House to table the coalition agreement between the Labour Government and United Future that shows quite clearly that this issue was never discussed in coalition talks. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that agreement. Is there any objection? There is objection.