Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17529] 
Questions to Ministers 
Endosulfan—Ban 
1. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Will he act to ban the toxic insecticide endosulfan which has been prohibited in the European Union but which is still sprayed on tomatoes and other food crops as well as parks and playing fields in New Zealand; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 In order to ban it I would need to call the application in. The application does not meet the test highlighted in Justice Potter’s 2003 decision in the Mothers Against Genetic Engineering case. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that for the second time in 3 years New Zealand’s meat exports to South Korea have been rejected because of contamination with endosulfan residues; and even if his Government is not worried about our children playing in contaminated playing fields and sports fields or eating contaminated food will he not at least use his powers under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and act to protect our meat export trade and our clean green image? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I can confirm that a shipment has been rejected by Korea and that that is an issue. The question is how we deal with the longer-term issue around the use of endosulfan. It is my opinion that the Environmental Risk Management Authority supplemented with expert scientific advice is the appropriate body to make that decision. I think transferring the decision making to a politician risks there being a lack of expert knowledge which was highlighted by the member herself when she called for a ban on water in 2001. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What extra resource has been applied to assist the management of chemical contamination? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Government has appropriated $1.158 million extra in this year’s Budget for the Environmental Risk Management Authority of which almost half is to double the number of reassessments per year of chemicals of concern to the public of New Zealand. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Has the Minister seen reports that endosulfan has been linked to congenital physical disorders and mental retardation in and deaths of farm workers and villagers in developing countries in Africa southern Asia and Latin America; if so why on earth would his Government allow an insecticide that has been banned or heavily restricted in more than 50 countries around the world to be used on our sports fields on our playing fields on our golf courses on our bowling greens and of course on our food? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the member is aware there is a process going on within the Environmental Risk Management Authority to make a decision as to whether this chemical should be more heavily restricted or banned. I am prepared to let the experts take it through that process. As the member is aware she can make a submission on the chemical as can every other New Zealander who wishes to. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can he confirm that despite the Environmental Risk Management Authority process he actually has powers under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to override the Environmental Risk Management Authority decision and to intervene as he pointed out himself recently if there is a risk that the big picture as it affects New Zealand at a national and an international level may be insufficiently taken into account; and surely he would agree that the risk that endosulfan poses to our meat trade is sufficiently big picture even if the health of New Zealand is not that he should use his powers to override or call in the Environmental Risk Management Authority decision? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In order to call in the Environmental Risk Management Authority decision I have to indicate that I do not have confidence in that organisation to make that decision properly. I do have confidence in it. 
Foreign Affairs Racing Minister—Confidence 
2.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister for Racing; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
John Key 
: What assurances did the Prime Minister seek and what assurances did she receive from Mr Peters at their meeting yesterday? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I sought an assurance of lawful behaviour and I received that assurance. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister telling the House that the standard she now requires of Ministers is simply that they can assure her that they have committed no illegal acts; if not what other requirements does she have of her Ministers? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Members would expect me to uphold the  
Cabinet Manual 
 which says that Ministers should behave appropriately and responsibly in their portfolios and generally maintain a good standard of behaviour. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: With regard to the questions about portfolio responsibilities that she has just been asked has she seen a report from Duncan Garner of TV3 that says: “National’s keeping a telephone book of ideas and proposals under wraps” in the hope that “news hacks with attention disorders move on quickly”; if so could this be the reason why National is not asking questions in this House about substantive policy issues? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The first part of the question was all right. As for the second part there is no ministerial responsibility for what other parties think in the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How is the first part in any way related to the actual question that has been asked which relates to confidence in the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister for Racing? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The question is a very broad and general one and the supplementary questions tend to follow suit. I call the Rt Hon Prime Minister but ask her not to address the second part of the question. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I did indeed see the report referred to as I saw a report in yesterday’s  
New Zealand Herald  
by Colin James that said that— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am just reflecting again on your ruling that the question is broad and supplementary questions tend to be broad etc. The honourable member over there asked a question about a report that Duncan Garner—great reporter that he is—had made on TV3 about some aspects of National Party activity. That can in no way whatsoever relate to this question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Of course if that were so then a very large number of questions that we have had about reports about New Zealand First activity would also be completely out of order. If members care to go back over many questions they have asked they would see that the Prime Minister is expected to be both omniscient and on occasion omnipotent. For her to be asked whether she has seen a report is a perfectly legitimate question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have heard enough. Thank you I think the member has explained himself well. I have always tended particularly with general substantive questions to allow very broad interpretations for those questions that follow up and are related. If in fact members wish me to have a much narrower interpretation then I will reflect on that and report back to the House. But Mr Brownlee I have ruled on this matter. If you wish to raise a different point of order that is fine; if it is the same point of order it will be taken as challenging the ruling of the Speaker. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I won’t do that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
John Key 
: If getting an assurance from Mr Peters that he had committed no illegal acts was all that the Prime Minister achieved yesterday in their 1-hour meeting what on earth did they discuss for the other 59 minutes? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think that is simply answered: I do not recall the meeting going for an hour. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm the explanation she gave at her press conference on Monday that “As long as Ministers are in their position I retain confidence in them.” and can we take that to mean that the strongest endorsement she can give the Minister of Foreign Affairs is that she has confidence in him because he is there? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member will get caught up in his own tautology if he is not careful. It is perfectly self-evident that if a Minister is in the job I have confidence in that Minister. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that she intends to apply the same test to Mr Peters as she applied to David Benson-Pope—that is when she said: “it’s not enough just to be capable you’ve got to be credible.”; and will she confirm that she finds all of the statements made by Mr Peters in the last week to be credible? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Certainly a lot more of them have been credible than the ones I have heard from that member who has taken every side of every issue. But I can say in respect of the comparison that the member is trying to draw that of course the issue of credibility I was drawing attention to in the case of the aforementioned member was one where I had been told one thing and another turned out to be the truth. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I seek the leave of the House under Standing Order 4(1) to suspend Standing Orders so that I can put a question to the leader of the National Party asking him to itemise every donation the National Party has received from secret trusts and how the National Party and its allies used that money. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Prime Minister assure the House— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Use Napisan. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please ask his question. 
Rodney Hide 
: The Minister of Education— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No would the member please— 
Rodney Hide 
: —has to be the saddest— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please Mr Hide be seated otherwise I will ask you to leave the Chamber. I was trying to ensure that the member could ask his question so I will ask that his question be heard in silence. 
Rodney Hide 
: Thank you Madam Speaker I appreciate that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would you just ask the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the standard she has applied to the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ staying on as Minister is the same standard that she would apply to her own Labour Ministers; if so have her own high standards now slipped so low that it is simply enough for John Tamihere David Benson-Pope or Lianne Dalziel—any number of Ministers—to assure her that they have not broken the law? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can assure the member that I will give each case fair consideration on its merits. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Are there any more supplementary questions? I will call question No. 3. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That surely cannot be it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order. If we have any more of those sorts of points of profile I will consider them to be creating disorder in the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It might help the member if I tell him that that certainly is not it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. Please be seated. The same applies. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Perhaps we should seek leave to suspend the proceedings of the House using the same procedure Mr Anderton just asked for to allow Mr Peters to actually give the explanations to the House that he has been promising for some days now. He told everyone that today would be the day. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is the member seeking leave? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A member cannot seek leave on behalf of another person; that is long since established. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Point of order— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We have a competition here. I think the Rt Hon Winston Peters was marginally on his feet first. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It goes on seniority Gerry and brains—sit down. I gave a press conference last Friday. I recommend you read what I said Madam Speaker as opposed to what those people up there in the press gallery thought I said. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member knows members should not bring the Speaker into the debate or the discussion. There is a general debate where these matters can be fully expressed in the appropriate way. This is question time. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If I was unable to seek leave because you accepted Michael Cullen’s offering in his point of order why did you put Mr Anderton’s leave which was also an expression of the House’s will? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Mr Anderton sought leave himself to ask a question. 
Rodney Hide 
: In which case I seek the leave of the House to explain what has been happening to money for New Zealand First and the shenanigans that have been going on. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
1080 Poison—Review 
3.  
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Will she undertake a comprehensive review of her department’s use of aerial 1080 drops following the news that seven kea have died after eating that deadly poison? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I am advised that the Department of Conservation constantly reviews its biodiversity operations to take account of new information and improve the overall outcomes. The reason that we know about these kea deaths is because the Department of Conservation initiated research to see whether there was a problem. Now we are considering what adjustments can be made accordingly. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can the Minister confirm that the killing of endangered and protected native birds is always illegal in New Zealand and does she expect her department to face charges or is it the case that the Department of Conservation now considers itself above the law? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: No deaths occurred intentionally. Deaths occurred in only one of three areas under this operation which affected only one population of kea. Kea are rare but are not critically threatened with extinction. We have to conduct pest control operations if we want to boost their numbers. Doing nothing is not an option. 
Moana Mackey 
: Are kea threatened by the pests being targeted in 1080 operations? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: A recent study showed that in an area that had not been subjected to any pest control the chicks and the eggs in 40 percent of kea nests were eaten by predators; 1080 operations kill possums and stoats both of which are predators of kea. 
Eric Roy 
: How can the public possibly have any confidence in the Minister and the Department of Conservation when in one week its officers shot a takahe mistaking it for a pukeko and in the next week we learnt that seven kea were killed in a botched poisoning operation? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: In reference to the first part of the question the Department of Conservation staff are devastated by the outcome of that experience and I reject the assertion of that member opposite. He was in a party that did nothing for 10 years about 1080 poison. If those members think that they knew those risks why did that member not speak to his Minister at the time and say that that operation should have been stopped? They did nothing because they knew the benefits. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister know of any viable option to 1080 in the control of possums in our forests? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: There are other options like bait controls on the ground with traps but the difficulty is that when there is difficult terrain—high mountainous terrain—people cannot be expected to get up there and put out traps. So 1080 is the only real option. Farmers know the benefits because of tuberculosis control. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: With reports that the water supplies of areas like Kumara on the West Coast and Levin are being threatened by aerial use of 1080 and with reports today that avian genocide of kea is now occurring as a result of indiscriminate 1080 drops what will it take for the Minister and her department to review the policy of aerial distribution of 1080 in favour of more ground-based and safer distribution? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I would not call the deaths of seven out of 29 kea in a survey genocide at all but it is of concern. We have to learn from our own research carried out by our own department. As to the water aspect of that question we know that 1080 breaks down once it is mixed with water. That is why no levels of 1080 beyond acceptable minimum levels have ever been found in drinking water. If we could find another option that was better than 1080 poison of course we would use it yet only last year the Environmental Risk Management Authority concluded that it was the best agent to use for pest control. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister aware that the labelling of 1080 states: “May be fatal. Repeated oral exposure may cause reproductive or developmental damage.” and that some pregnant women feel forced to leave their homes—as recently happened in Karamea—and is it not time to bring an end to the aerial application of this deadly poison in favour of alternative ways of controlling possums stoats and weasels? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I would like to refer the member to my previous answers; I think his questions have all been answered. I reiterate that it was only last year in 2007 that the Environmental Risk Management Authority review concluded that the benefits of 1080 outweigh the risks including those of aerial operations. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek leave of the House to table the labelling that is contained on a 1080 container. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek leave of the House to table a paper by Clare St Pierre of the Waikato concerning alternative pest control methods that avoid 1080 at a cheaper cost. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Electioneering—Government Departments 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she stand by her statement “Government departments are there to inform the public legitimately about what programmes are available for them. They are not there to electioneer on behalf of any political party.”; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: Yes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Was the Minister advised that after an investigation by the State Services Commission Commissioner Iain Rennie as recently as 10 July 2008 had to send out a memo to the chief executives of 120 State agencies telling them that the use of the term “Labour-led Government” in departmental material and on websites was not appropriate under the Electoral Finance Act; and was this the Government’s intention when it passed the Electoral Finance Act? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am aware that the State Services Commission has sent out guidance to its various agencies on a number of occasions including on 10 July. All of that information has been made available to the National Party in the interests of transparency I suspect. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain why when the legal advice on this matter was so clear the Minister of Finance left the term out of all the Budget material but the State Services Commission has found 13600 uses of the term “Labour-led Government” on Government department websites; and can she explain how this phrase which is extensively used by the Labour Party has found its way into departmental material when the legal advice was so clear that it was not allowed to appear in the Budget? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Why do I not actually read out the advice that the member refers to so that we can all be clear of its nature. 
Hon Members 
: Just answer the question. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Are the members all right? The State Services Commission stated that “each situation needs to be examined by content”. It stated: “In general referring to the political composition of the Government of the day e.g. Labour-led will not be relevant or appropriate to include on websites.” It also stated: “In addition reference to the policies of a political party will usually not be appropriate.” etc. In other words they are guidelines and I hope that they are well followed. 
Hon Bill English 
: So can the Minister confirm that despite the State Services Commission advising 120 agencies that the use of the term “Labour-led Government” is not appropriate to use its words it has been used 13600 times on taxpayer-funded websites; if this is a breach of section 67 of the Electoral Finance Act which bars the publication of electoral advertisements by Government departments is she concerned that this law appears to be being breached so widely? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member is of the view that somehow there is a brightline here and what I have tried to do in my response is to indicate that the State Services Commission has said that each situation needs to be managed by content. If it has gone on to say that it would not be relevant or appropriate to include that term on agencies’ websites then one assumes that as times goes by the agencies will take them all off. One thing is clear: they will not need to take off the words “National-led Government” because we have not had one of those for a while and we will not in my view for a while yet. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that Government departments appear to be ignoring the advice from the State Services Commission does that account for the fact that the Department of Internal Affairs through Ministerial Services is publishing these unauthorised election advertisements which were distributed by Labour MPs as recently as Monday containing not only the phrase “Labour-led Government” but also “two ticks”—which is definitely an electoral advertisement— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Bill English 
: —and which were published by the office of the Prime Minister; and can the Minister explain why this should be allowed to proceed under the law that was passed by the Minister and pushed by her Government to stop exactly this sort of activity? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It kind of goes without saying that I do not know about the piece of paper that the member is holding up. What I will say is that when that member was the leader of the National Party two ticks was just about a landslide. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the State Services Commissioner has told State agencies not to use the term “Labour-led Government” that the Minister of Finance and Treasury are the only people who have taken any notice of that direction because they did not put it in the Budget that despite that advice the term appears 13600 times on websites that are fully taxpayer-funded and that the term also appears in an advertisement produced by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet this week and that therefore the Labour Party is using Ministerial Services’ money to break its own law? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have been asked to confirm either four or five things. The first of them I confirmed in my answer to the first supplementary question. The third is a piece of data that comes from the member who asked the question and I am certainly not confirming that because he normally does not get his facts right. As for the bits in between I have forgotten what they were. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table the results of a State Services Commission search of Government websites that record 13600 examples. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table 10 blanked pages which is the legal advice given to the State Services Commission on which it bases its direction to departments not to use the term “Labour-led Government”. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Health Infrastructure—Reports 
5.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What recent reports has he received on investment in health infrastructure? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Today I announced the approval of an $80 million revamp for Taranaki Base Hospital. This revamp is the latest in a large hospital development and rebuilding programme—the largest in New Zealand’s history. Since Labour took office seven new hospitals have been built and eight have had major upgrades. Ten specialist facilities have been built three more redevelopment projects are almost complete and a further four major capital projects have been approved and are under way. What a great Labour-led Government! 
Lesley Soper 
: How does spending on hospital capital upgrades under the current Labour-led Government’s tenure compare with the spending under previous administrations? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is more than three times the previous National Government spend. Over $1.5 billion has been invested in 33 building projects that will benefit patients from Kaitaia to the deep south including a major rebuild of Auckland Hospital a new base hospital for Invercargill a new base hospital in the Wairarapa a new women’s hospital in Christchurch a new hospital in South Taranaki a new hospital in central Otago the new Horowhenua health centre—the list could go on and on. How about the National Party fronting up and revealing its secret phone book - sized agenda for health so that the public can compare the difference? 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: When will the Minister deliver on the Government’s broken promise to rebuild and replace ward 27 Wellington’s inadequate and outdated psychiatric unit and how many more suicides in the community will there be before this Minister stops bragging and takes action? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Government has invested significantly in mental health facilities around the country including the new facilities in the region of the member’s own district health board—the Waitemata District Health Board. The decisions about the Wellington-based hospital are a matter for the Capital and Coast District Health Board. 
Effective Interventions Package—Operation 
6.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she stand by the statements of the Prime Minister when launching the Effective Interventions package in 2006 that it was designed to “address the fast growing rate of imprisonment New Zealand has been experiencing” and to “make our communities safer”? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: Yes; although if the member had quoted the Prime Minister in full he would have seen that she actually addressed the issue of how some offenders are sentenced and how some serve their sentences. One way of ensuring that our communities are safer is to have the most serious criminals in prison for longer. For example the non-parole period for aggravated murder now starts at 17 years rather than 10 years as it was under a National Government. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that one of the initiatives to save prison beds was the use of electronic bail for those accused who had been denied ordinary bail and that it was expected to be granted to upwards of 1000 defendants per annum in order to save 120 prison beds a year; and can she confirm that after the first year only 99 applications have been granted saving just 26 beds? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I cannot confirm the precise details but I can confirm that what the member says in general is true—that people are using electronic bail. But that is a judicial decision made in the light of the circumstances by those who are best placed to make those decisions. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm the contents of a briefing paper for justice sector chief executives which states that initial estimates for saving 120 beds by the use of electronic bail were “optimistic” because over two-thirds of those remanded are lower-level offenders who do not spend long enough in custody for them to realistically apply for e-bail meaning that “most defendants placed on EM-bail thus far have been facing lengthy remands on often serious charges”? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I cannot confirm that from off the top of my head. 
Simon Power 
: How can electronic bail “make our communities safer” when officials concede that it is primarily being used to release those accused of serious charges back into the community; and does not that explain why one in five have breached electronic bail such as the accused paedophile who while on e-bail allegedly held birthday parties and sleepovers for preschool children and why over one in 10 have simply run away? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I make the point to the member that defendants are innocent until proven guilty and that defendants being assessed for bail have to be assessed as to whether they are a real and significant risk. Those decisions are made by the judiciary. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that the electronic bail scheme cost $5 million to set up and costs $3.2 million a year to run all to save 26 prison beds yet keeping those offenders in prison would have cost $2.4 million a year would have avoided putting public safety at risk and also would have saved the taxpayer nearly $1 million? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I can explain to the member that putting people in prison even for a short term means there is a much higher risk of those people committing offences when they come out. People who serve a community-based sentence or who are kept out of prison are at a much lower risk of committing further offences. What does the member want—people put in prison for a long period of time and therefore a higher risk of their committing offences when they come out? 
Ron Mark 
: Why should the country be at all concerned about the fast-growing rate of imprisonment that New Zealand is experiencing; why should we care; why should we not just lock more people up? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Because in terms of non-custodial sentences it is quite clear from the Department of Corrections’ figures that approximately 32 percent of those serving community-based sentences reoffend within 12 months compared with 44 percent of those who serve short-term prison sentences. The whole point of this scheme is that by keeping people out of jail for short periods of time we run a much lower risk that they will reoffend. Less reoffending means fewer victims of crime. What does the member want—more people in prison more reoffending more victims? 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister agree that Ministry of Justice officials were right when they warned that targeting electronic bail at those already refused bail “conflicts with the fact that such defendants are more likely to have characteristics or criminal histories that would make them unsuitable for release on bail with electronic monitoring”; if so why was Phil Goff rolled when he recommended to Cabinet in March 2005 that “I do not propose electronic monitoring as a condition of bail be reconsidered at this time.”? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Coming back to the bail point I re-emphasise for the member that people are innocent until proven guilty and that in assessing risk one has to be sure that a person is not a real and significant risk. In the recent decision on bail one of the judges said there was a “need for a proper inference to be drawn from proved facts as opposed to the Court engaging in speculation or guesswork …”. Electronic bail has worked very well. 
Ron Mark 
: In view of the answer to my previous supplementary question has the Minister seen reports that show that 85 percent of all inmates paroled are back inside within 5 years that the cost of violence currently stands at $3.14 billion—and that excludes the personal cost to the victims affected—and that the cost of crime in general on our streets is now $10.33 billion although the cost of maintaining prisons is only $1.05 billion; if she has seen those reports why has she not come to the same conclusion as New Zealand First that it is far safer and far more cost-effective to lock them up? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I think we are hearing a new policy from New Zealand First which is that the moment someone is convicted that person is locked up and he or she will never get bail will never be released and will spend his or her whole life in prison. That of course means that that person will not have any chance to reoffend. At those rates the prison numbers would swell dramatically. Let us face it: people commit crimes they are sentenced and they go to jail. What we have found is that for people serving short-term sentences the risk of reoffending is much higher than for people serving community-based sentences. What this Government has done for serious offenders is to provide for longer prison sentences and we see people being sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment before they can apply for bail. We have got tough on those tougher crimes. 
Question time interrupted.