Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11826] 
2.  
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What is the spending breakdown for the $1.3 million spent consulting iwi over the new Spring Hill prison in the north Waikato and how many Maori were consulted? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 The projected cost of the Spring Hill prison is approximately $250 million. The $1.3 million spent on iwi consultation covers a 4-year period. To assist the member I have a breakdown of the cost in the form of a table that I will table at the end of the question. Of that money $875000 has been spent on the procurement of specific services and $438000 relates to 48 marae hui and other meetings throughout Waikato-Tainui. It is not possible to say how many Maori have been consulted but it is a large number. I consider the $1.3 million figure to be excessive and I have asked for more information about the consultation costs for not just this prison but also the other three regional prisons currently under development. I have also instructed officials to advise me of any proposed consultation commitments in the future so that I can assure myself that the commitments are fully justified. 
Rodney Hide 
: On what date did he learn that his department was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on consulting with Maori and what action has he taken to put a stop to the gravy train? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I cannot recall the precise date but as I have advised the member as far as any future commitments are concerned those proposals will need to come to me to be justified. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Why is the Spring Hill Corrections Facility in north Waikato required? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Currently 600 inmates from the region are serving their sentences as far away as Invercargill. In order to reduce reoffending it is important to bring inmates back to their local communities as family support is a key part of successful rehabilitation. That was the answer there. In addition this Government is putting more people in prison for longer as part of its get-tough-on-crime campaign. That means that four new prisons such as Spring Hill are necessary and the planning for those prisons is well under way. In the case of the Northland facility significant progress has been made on construction. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How much has his department spent on consulting the people living around Meremere who are non-Maori and if he does not know that does it not indicate how little has been spent on working with the wider north Waikato community? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That member who is the local member for the area around that site knows that a huge amount of consultation has gone on. The reality is that millions of dollars have been spent on consultants including lawyers architects engineers and earth-moving companies. A huge amount of money has been spent on trying to get this much-needed facility up and running—a facility that ultimately I am sure that member will support. 
Ron Mark 
: What concerns the Minister more: the amount of money the Department of Corrections is spending on cultural advisory services or the increasing exorbitant amount of money that the department is wasting on its already failing integrated offender management system which it cannot even keep up with itself; and how much longer will we go down that path of creating Labour’s own INCIS project? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That widens the original question but the Minister may comment. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: With regard to the last part of that member’s question first the reality is that the integrated offender management system is proving to be very successful and I would be happy to give the member a briefing on it if he so requires. As far as the first part is concerned he will realise that consultation with a range of groups is required under the Resource Management Act—an Act that was passed by the previous National Government. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister agree that involving the community in decisions such as establishing new prisons can reduce costs in the long term and does he agree that community buy-in into the corrections system is essential if it is ever going to be anything more than a way to churn out angrier and more effective criminals? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Hide you know that you cannot interject while questions are being asked. You have had your one warning of the day. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes. Getting reintegration into the community is very very important if we are to try to reduce reoffending. Having the community working with the local prison and offenders is really important in order to be able to achieve that. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Why should taxpayers have to pay for consultation with local Maori over the prison when presumably that is what they pay the local Maori MP for—or has he just not bothered to talk to Nanaia Mahuta about Maori concerns over the prison? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I can personally report that that local Maori member is a very very hard-working member on behalf of her constituents. She is extraordinary in the amount of work she does in order to represent constituents. The fact is that consultation is required under the Resource Management Act an Act that was passed by the previous National Government. 
Heather Roy 
: How does he justify spending $1.3 million on consulting Maori when the Department of Corrections told prison neighbour Lyn Milnes that it was not its policy to pay for consultation despite the department picking her brains about land stability flooding social considerations and so on—or is this one rule for Maori and one rule for everyone else? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No it is most certainly not that. A range of people has been consulted on this prison. Some are paid like lawyers and some are not like local members of the community. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Will he investigate his department’s consultation with 61-year-old Lyn Milnes which involved his department bullying her not to take court action by threatening to make the council reverse her small subdivision if she opposed the prison—or does he think that is acceptable behaviour? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That is highly emotive language from that member. Anybody can take court action under the Resource Management Act. The reality is that this prison is a much-needed facility. There will always be difficulty because everybody wants people to be locked up but no one wants prisons to be in his or her own backyard. It is really important that we proceed with this facility as quickly as we can. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: What work did Mr Tom Moana do for the department to justify his payment of $131753.14 in just 1 year and how many Maori consultants were employed? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That is a good question. As I have advised the member I am seeking more information on that and on other matters relating to the consultation around this particular project. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why has the Minister twice in his answers blamed the former National Government for the Resource Management Act when in 1999 a comprehensive reform bill was introduced but rejected on the instruction of the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment; and why will this Minister now not take responsibility for the mess caused by rejecting those sensible amendments? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to warn members. This is the only warning I will give to that member and it is the final warning for the House. There must be no comments while questions are being asked. Everyone is entitled to ask his or her question in silence. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I question the relevance of that question. The question itself was about responsibility for the Resource Management Act. This Minister has no responsibility for that Act. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In terms of the second part of the question the Minister has some responsibility. He can answer that part. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I was not blaming the National Party; I just stated the fact that it introduced that legislation. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister said that National introduced the Resource Management Bill. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Those were his exact words. That is not correct. I seek leave of the House to table the Resource Management Bill which was introduced to the House by Geoffrey Palmer in 1989. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that bill. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on it; it was a point of order asking for leave. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is this not another Labour Government U-turn with the Minister blaming his department for spending $1.3 million on consultation when this Government and those Ministers authorised that consultation and those payments? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It is not a U-turn. I am not blaming officials; I am just seeking further information. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I put it to you that it is really unsatisfactory for a Minister who has received a question under notice so it has not been sprung upon him to come along to the House and say—and I would quote him exactly—it is “a good question” and he is seeking more information. The Minister did not even make the offer as Ministers usually do that when he has got the information he will table it with the Parliamentary Library or will send it to the member. He just said it was a very good question and he was seeking more information. I put it to you that that is a totally unsatisfactory answer and that the Minister should at least give an undertaking to the House that when he has obtained the information which one would have thought he would know about the $1.3 million he will make it available to members. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I said right at the start that I would table the breakdown. I then said I would get further information. I am happy to provide the member with it when it is available. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The other point I would make to the member is that the last question asked whether the Minister was satisfied—whether the Minister was satisfied to some extent—or whether there was a U-turn or something like that and he said there had not been a U-turn. It is the previous question that the member has actually talked about. Having cleared up the point with—[ 
Interruption 
] The member will stand withdraw and apologise for interjecting while I am speaking. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the member I listen very carefully to the questions and answers in this House and I hope to ensure that sufficient answers are given. On that question when the Minister clarified the point that he will table information and give the additional information required I would have thought that addressed that particular issue. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. After question time I invite you as you often do to look at the  
Hansard 
 record of what has just occurred. I think you will find there is a danger of the Speaker getting into justifying answers given by Ministers. This is the second week in a row that members have seen you as Speaker stand and interpret an answer and give that interpretation to the House. I invite you to look at that. I think the precedents being set are unhelpful. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think the member makes quite an interesting and a fair point but it is the exact reverse of what happens when members of the Opposition keep asking the Speaker to try to state what the Minister’s answer should be as opposed to simply judge whether the question is being addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is exactly right. The question was addressed and I left it at that. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt but this follows on from that point. We are having difficulty with written questions and indeed with oral questions where Ministers say yes they will table information which is where we have got to but it is not clear whether it will be tabled this afternoon tomorrow next week or next year. It would seem to me to be helpful if the Minister would indicate— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister said that at the end of this question he would seek leave to table it immediately. 
Rodney Hide 
: No I am sorry that is not correct. He will table material that is helpful with regard to the primary question at the end of question time but when he was asked “a good question” by Mr Eckhoff he said he would table answers to that question—but when? It would be helpful if he could say whether it will be 10 o’clock tonight tomorrow next week or next year. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am happy to table the information as soon as I have it. 
Rodney Hide 
: That is the point. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I have asked for further information. I cannot give it to the member before I get it. I am sorry; it just does not work like that. 
Rodney Hide 
: This is the Minister of Corrections who is the boss of his department. Surely to heaven he has not said to the Department of Corrections that it should find the information out when that is convenient. Surely he will have given his staff a timetable so—given that we get very few questions—why can he not come to this House and say he will have the information by the end of the week? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is not obliged to table anything. He has said he will and he has said he will do so when he receives the information. I am sure there can be a subsequent question about that on another occasion. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the interests of sorting out any confusion in the mind of the public and the media is it the Minister’s contention that the Resource Management Bill was drafted when Richard Prebble and his colleagues were in the third Labour Government and the bill was passed by Nick Smith and his National colleagues; and if that is what they did not intend from foreseeable predictable Waitangi industry graft why did they do that in the first place? Is that his view? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Those were two very good questions. In answer to the first one I can absolutely confirm what the member has said and I therefore find it quite difficult to hear some of the outrage about this matter now. I presume that some of the issues that have arisen now go directly back to that policy when members of both the ACT and National parties supported each other in Government. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When a member from the National Party asks a question about the Resource Management Act you say that it is not relevant but when Mr Peters gets up and makes some statements that is apparently in order. It is just as relevant as it would be for me to ask what the point was of changing the Government if a National Government was to pass a Geoffrey Palmer loopy bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me put it this way Mr Prebble: if what you say was correct I would have been wrong but in actual fact—as I consulted with the Clerk—I did allow the question concerned. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Surely it is in the interests of this House the country and the media in particular that any issues of the type of huge confusion that we are hearing about on this matter—in particular issues to do with responsibility and culpability—be sorted out now. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: The difficulty with the question is that it has been asked of a person who was not a Minister. If the member really wants to come and ask me I am quite happy to tell him about it. I thought that I had delayed the resource management legislation right after the election and the member could have knocked me over with a feather when the previous National Government passed it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is interesting how history reveals itself. I want to move on now. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to give some consideration to the issue that with written questions and now with oral questions Ministers are answering by saying that they do not have the information. They answer questions within the specified time and then they say that when they get the information they will get back to the member. Written questions of that nature that I asked last year still have not been answered. I know that Ministers and departments have the material—they are just waiting for a non-embarrassing time to release it. I do not see how this Parliament can hold the executive to account if Ministers can say that when they get the information they will give it to members. I think that when we put a question down to be answered and the Minister does not have the material there should be an expectation that a time frame for providing it is given. Otherwise what is the point of asking questions? I ask you Mr Speaker to give a considered ruling on that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I quote to the member Speakers’ ruling 148(3)the last sentence of which states: “… Ministers are under an obligation to the member concerned to follow up with a full reply as soon as possible thereafter.” I will take the member’s advice and look at this issue. Mr Swain wanted to put something down. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the  
Hansard 
 record from 1991 showing that the Hon Winston Peters did indeed vote for the passage of the Resource Management Act. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I seek leave to table the breakdown of the iwi expenditure around consultation that the member asked for. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.