Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8183] 
Questions to Ministers 
Sentencing and Parole Acts—Victims and Public Safety 
1. MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is he satisfied that the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Parole Act 2002 are working in the best interests of the victims of crime and the safety of the community as a whole? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I am satisfied that the Sentencing Act the Parole Act and the Victims’ Rights Act together provide a regime that far better serves the interests of victims of crime and protects the safety of the community. Worst offenders now receive the maximum sentences and those have been up to 30 years before parole can even be considered. The Parole Board may not release offenders sentenced under new legislation where they constitute an undue risk and automatic release at two-thirds has been abolished. However amendments can and will be made to the law over time taking into account how the courts are applying it. 
Marc Alexander 
: How can the Minister be satisfied with the Government’s parole policy when after the families of the victims of a manslaughter and arson case were informed by the Department of Corrections about the impending release of one of the offenders Jeremy Tahi they were invited to a meeting with the Parole Board only to be told by the department before that meeting took place that Tahi would be released anyway? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am not aware of the particular case and probably could not comment on it if I were aware of it but I can assure the member that if any corrections official said there was going to be a decision one way or the other before the Parole Board had even heard the case they would be grossly out of order. I doubt that any corrections official would have said that. If he or she did they were very foolish. 
Richard Worth 
: In face of ongoing criticism about loopholes relating to home detention the changes that have been made to the Sentencing Act in respect of fines defaulters and non-payment of fines the criticism about mitigating factors in sentencing and ongoing criticism of the Parole Board does there not come a point where even a wise Minister would say that it is time to amend this stuff? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am aware that a whole range of people within the justice system—judges and lawyers—have praised the legislation. Let me quote one of the member’s former colleagues a High Court judge who said: “The Sentencing Act in most areas is a huge improvement on the mishmash of law that applied prior to 1 July on sentencing. It greatly assists the court.” That was said by one of the former high officials in the member’s party who is now a High Court judge. 
Tim Barnett 
: What major changes has this Government made to recognise the rights and interests of victims? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Victims’ Rights Act represents a quantum leap forward in the recognition of victims’ rights. It makes victims’ rights no longer simply vague principles but mandatory rights. Victims on the notification list can now attend parole hearings and make submissions. Victims can present their victim impact statements orally in court. These and other changes such as the placement of victims’ advisers in every court are major improvements to the way victims are being treated. 
Ron Mark 
: How appropriate and meaningful does he think his Victims’ Rights Act his Sentencing Act and his Parole Act are to the family of David McNee the murdered television interior designer given that the man charged with his murder Phillip Layton Edwards was released from prison having served only half of his sentence and was known to be a violent offender? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Edwards who is before the court—and I do not want to comment on his personal position—had been mainly convicted of minor offences. He was not regarded as a serious violent offender. That is the information I have received on that particular case. He was released not on parole but because of the length of his sentence after he had served half of that sentence. 
Marc Alexander 
: How can the Minister be satisfied with the operation of the Parole Act when in the case I outlined—that of Jeremy Tahi—it is utterly apparent that the lack of coordination between the Parole Board and the Department of Corrections means that victims are being denied effective involvement in parole decisions? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As the member knows under the Victims’ Rights Act victims have the statutory right to be involved in parole hearings if they are on the notification list. That was never the case under the National Government. Victims can attend and make oral submissions and any victim can make written submissions to the Parole Board. That is written into law. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister not understand that all over New Zealand ordinary people simply look at the case of for example Michael Carroll and the ridiculous decision made by the Parole Board in that case and the subsequent result where the man was lost in Christchurch City—at large for more than 24 hours—and consider that his attitude towards parole has been simply unworkable and not sensible? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As the member knows well the Minister of Justice cannot—and never has been able to—comment on individual decisions by the Parole Board. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why does the Parole Board place the likelihood of reoffending before the need for certainty on the part of the victim that the offender will be put away for a defined period or does that reflect an ethos that parole is more about finding reasons that someone should get out early rather than reasons for keeping him or her there? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Absolutely not. The new Parole Act makes it absolutely clear that the Parole Board must not release any offender who would constitute an undue risk to the safety of the community. What is more the member will be aware that the Parole Board can now defer parole hearings for up to 3 years and has done so in the case of Paul Bailey and Raymond Ratima. That never happened under that Government—it did not give a damn about victims’ rights. 
Ron Mark 
: Noting that answer then can the Minister tell the House what will he do to a Parole Board that makes a decision to release a person who subsequently proves to be a danger and a risk to the community by carrying out an act of violence? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Any Parole Board is made up of human beings and human beings from time to time make errors. If the member looks at the statistics he will note that what is remarkable about the Parole Board is that most of the time it does get it right. 
Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Document Disclosure 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why didn’t the Prime Minister and her officials ensure that all documents including memoranda from her department relating to GM-contaminated corn were disclosed to the public of New Zealand during the 2002 election campaign? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: The Prime Minister made it clear publicly that all relevant advice should be released. She was not aware until well after the election campaign that some items had not been released. 
Hon Bill English 
: In the light of her statement on 11 July 2002 on National Radio that “I believe in full disclosure” will she volunteer to show up to the select committee inquiry into “corngate”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister did indeed make that statement and did indeed order full disclosure of all papers. In the case of this paper it was first released in November of 2002 discussed in a magazine article in February 2003 given to the Local Government and Environment Committee in April 2003 and discovered by the National Party on 26 August 2003. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are seeing this happen increasingly in this House and I would like you to comment on it. When the Government is on a difficult question the Minister makes a half-baked attempt at a joke and the Labour caucus has clearly been instructed to clap and laugh to try to deflect the question. It is terribly orchestrated— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard a member make an interjection during a point of order. She is very lucky not to be asked to leave and that is the only warning today. 
Rodney Hide 
: It is clearly orchestrated. I do not want to relitigate this particular one but I would ask you to keep your eye on that. It is not helpful to question time to have that forced laughter from the back benches. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me put it this way. I would be the first to enjoy the Standing Orders Committee coming down with a recommendation that there be absolutely no interjections whatsoever during question time and I would fully support that. However this is a Parliament where I believe we are able to have a bit of toing and froing. I did not see anything that occurred then as being different from other parties doing similar things at similar times. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given that Minister’s answer it is important the House knows that I was specifically advised by the Clerk’s Office that I could not release those papers without that being a breach of privilege until such time as the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet had appeared before the select committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order and the member knows it. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In view of recent revelations based on the documents and memoranda that were withheld by the Prime Minister’s department during the 2002 election campaign does the Prime Minister now regret calling John Campbell of TV3 “a little creep” last July—yes or no? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that the Prime Minister won a Broadcasting Standards Authority complaint against TV3 on the basis that she was “ambushed” on “corngate” why will she not accept the considered invitation of the select committee to show up and explain her role in “corngate” at the legitimate inquiry of this Parliament? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Apart from anything else because as I have just said the document now being referred to was first released in November 2002 reported in a magazine article of February 2003 given to the select committee in April— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the member start his comments with “because” and that is an answer to the question. Let him finish. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: And also because the document referred to is simply a cover note for a Cabinet document which was released before the election. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Why did the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet not release any of its large bundle of papers during the election campaign when the Ministry for the Environment released its two boxes of papers and why did it take an Official Information Act request by  
Metro 
 writer Steven Price many months later before any of that material was released? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am advised by the chief executive that in his judgment following the principles of the Official Information Act confidential memos within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet were not to be subject to release. That clearly was directly contrary to the Prime Minister’s instruction to release all material. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In the light of that last answer and the Prime Minister’s earlier comment in July last year I recall about disclosure has the Prime Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now leave the Chamber. I have told the member there will be no interjecting during questions. The member interjected. I warned the member. Please leave the Chamber. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With all due respect this is one of those situations that get a little tricky. We had a circumstance last week where Mr Tamihere was ejected from Parliament and was then brought back to answer a question. I notice that question No. 4 on the Order Paper is in the name of Dr Nick Smith. It is not unusual for there to be some interjection during the course of question time. It has been very noticeable in the last week that there has been a lower threshold of tolerance on your part—that is the standard you wish to set. But in this case it seems on an issue that is very sensitive and where there are quite serious issues of accountability being examined by the Opposition it simply does not look good if one of the questioners—in this case Dr Nick Smith—is expelled from the House and is unable to ask his question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has his facts slightly wrong. I ejected Mr Tamihere and I was asked to recall him because he had a subsequent question. I thought on balance as that was a request made by the Opposition I would do so and I was generous in that regard. But I have made it perfectly clear—and there has been no change to my standard over the last 3 years—that during the asking of questions there are to be no interjections. That was a very very noisy and unprovoked interjection and the member must leave the Chamber. Please leave. 
Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: What about my supplementary question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may have his supplementary question. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Bearing in mind the decision you have just made—and we are not disputing that—Dr Nick Smith does have a question No. 4. I ask that he be allowed to return to the Chamber to ask question No. 4 and then leave. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to be reasonable about this. I think I will allow him to do that but that is the only time he is to be in the Chamber during question time. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In view of the previous answer and the Prime Minister’s own comments in July last year about full disclosure what action was taken either at that time or subsequently in respect of a standard of behaviour by Dr Prebble that was clearly less than that expected by the Prime Minister with regard to that disclosure? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think that Dr Prebble has made it clear that he now thinks he made an error of judgment. It was a matter of his judgment on the balance of looking at things in the light of the Official Information Act. I do not believe and I do not think the Prime Minister believes that the lack of judgment in that particular case was sufficiently serious for disciplinary action to be taken against an excellent public servant. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that neither she nor any other Cabinet Minister instructed the Government members of the Local Government and Environment Committee to block the request of that select committee to call on the Prime Minister to explain the situation in order to help that committee with its inquiries? Why did Government members and United Future members block that request and prevent the committee doing that inquiry? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I allow the question was that part of the meeting held—[ 
Interruption 
] There is a press statement. All right. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister is not responsible for the actions of Government members on select committees. 
Hon Bill English 
: I repeat my question to the Prime Minister: did she or any other member of her Cabinet or the whips instruct the Labour members and the United Future members of the select committee inquiring into “corngate” to vote against the select committee invitation to her to show up to explain her role? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the member cared to read the Standing Orders he would understand that it is not appropriate to instruct members of select committees to do anything. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Twice now I have asked Dr Cullen direct questions that he simply refuses to answer. I asked him quite explicitly—not about the Standing Orders—whether the Prime Minister or any whip or Minister had given instructions that Labour and United Future members were to vote against Helen Clark coming to the select committee. That is a pretty straightforward question. I do not need a lesson in the Standing Orders; I know them. What I know is that this Government is unlikely to have followed them. I asked him a direct question and he should answer that question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: First I take exception to the notion that the Government would not follow the Standing Orders. In fact the member is trying to accuse the Prime Minister of a breach of privilege. If he wishes to do that he should do so by way of a letter. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I need nothing further. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any further assistance. If the Leader of the House chose to answer that question in the way that he did then that is the way he chose to do so. He did address it. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Prime Minister answer my previous question which was different from Mr English’s question and did not relate to the two particular memos but asked this: why did the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet not release any of its large bundle of papers during the election campaign when the Ministry for the Environment did; why did it take an Official Information Act request months later for it all to come out and could it all have been covered by the matters that Mr Prebble relies on in explaining his decision? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I could not quite follow the last part of the question. In terms of the first part I am advised by Dr Prebble that it was his judgment that guided by the principles of the Official Information Act there was no overriding public interest. What I can say is that having looked at the document itself nothing in that material is essentially different from the Cabinet document that was released before the election. 
Light Armoured Vehicles—Defence Capability 
3.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Is he confident that the Army’s new light armoured vehicles have the capability to carry out defence operations in the South Pacific? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Acting Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Yes and more important the Army is. 
Ron Mark 
: Why then are there no plans to deploy the LAVIIIs into the Solomons along with the 125 infantry soldiers who have just been deployed there? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There is probably a variety of answers to that including firstly that they are not regarded as being needed there at the present time because not a shot has been fired to date. Usually light armoured vehicles are put in when that is anticipated. Secondly my understanding is that the vehicles have just started to arrive. The first of them came just a couple of weeks ago. The two plans have not fitted together in any case. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: How will the capability of the LAVIII differ from the capability of the M113 in relation to deployment to Pacific Island countries? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think the difference between the two vehicles is that we are comparing a vehicle from the 1960s with a vehicle that has been built for the 21st century. There is a range of things that the LAVIIIs have. They have greater protection for their occupants and I think that is most important. They have better firepower. They have night-fighting capability. They can actually fire while they are moving which the M113s could not. I think in just about every sense they are superior vehicles. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Notwithstanding the Minister’s answer has he read of the United States Army’s concerns over the vulnerability of the LAVIIIs to rocket-propelled grenade fire and of its resulting decision to fit extra slat armour to the vehicles destined for Iraq in October? Will the New Zealand Army be purchasing and fitting extra armour to its light armoured vehicles; if not why not and if so at what cost? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Two of those three questions can be answered. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The United States is clearly not concerned about the vehicle; it has purchased 2200 of them. I will record for the member what the congressional committee said about that quite recently. The report stated that the Stryker which is the same as the LAVIII was “more survivable faster roomier more comfortable and less logistically demanding than the alternative M113A3”. The vehicle armour is very good. It can take at point-blank range a 7.62 millimetre bullet without the appliqué armour. It can survive a mine of 7.5 kilograms which is larger than a normal mine. It will blow a wheel off but the vehicle will keep going. In just about every respect it provides greater protection and that is why the Army made the decision to purchase that vehicle. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
Washington Times 
 entitled “A study finds new Army vehicles too vulnerable”. The article outlines the problems— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In the event that there was to be a deployment of any light armoured vehicles to any South Pacific theatre of action is the Minister confident that we actually have the means of physically transporting them swiftly and safely to such a deployment at present? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The answer is yes. On every occasion when the New Zealand Army has deployed armoured vehicles they have been shipped by sea. They can be transported by aircraft but it is a rather expensive way of doing that. The C130 will take a LAVIII but as in East Timor if we were to send armoured vehicles to a particular theatre of action we would send them by sea. Generally of course we would contract a vessel to do that as we did with regard to East Timor. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the Minister aware that on the 13th of this month as a result of concerns expressed to the US Army’s Training and Doctrine Command Centre at Fort Monroe at the impending deployment to Iraq of a brigade of Strykers—concerns as to their vulnerability—that centre has announced that a battalion of helicopter gunships will now be assigned to protect the brigade of Strykers; if so when will New Zealand purchase its supply of helicopter gunships to protect our Strykers and what will the cost of that be? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Two of those questions can be answered. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It has always been the case that when we have deployed troops in particular to a theatre of active warfare there is air support and that that is provided by allied countries. We did not use our air combat wing because its aircraft were too old to use in such theatres. I say this about the deployment to Iraq: any armoured vehicle can be disabled and destroyed by armaments. Seven US tanks have been so destroyed in the Iraqi war theatre. Generally one does not use light armoured vehicles where there is that sort of risk. If there will be heavy armaments one deploys other vehicles. And our troops would not do that either with the older M113 or the new LAVIII. 
Genetically Modified Organisms—Election Policy 
4.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: In what ways has the Government honoured Labour’s 1999 election policy that they would “ensure that agencies with responsibility for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) including GM foods are accountable and involve the public in decision-making processes”? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 We achieved that through among other things increasing funding to the Environmental Risk Management Authority by 35 percent and implementing the recommendations of the Environmental Risk Management Authority review to ensure it can carry out its task. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Where is the accountability when she promised extra tests which did not exist; when she wrote an article damning a book which she did not read; when she said there was zero tolerance when all the papers state there was 0.5 percent tolerance; when she said there was no contamination when the head of the Environmental Risk Management Authority said: “You couldn’t say there was no contamination.”; and given all those errors why do we not see some accountability by her resigning? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: This may be a long reply. I will not attempt to deal with all the four objections but let us deal with the first one. The first matter I was accused of then was of not following the policy of zero tolerance. At no time did the Government in the area of November-December 2000 decide to break the rule—the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act—by deliberately allowing and knowingly allowing any new organisms to enter the country. The policy of zero tolerance was followed through to the letter. 
On the question of no contamination—I think that is what I heard—and whether I could say there were no seeds that were contaminated at no stage did we ever say that although in shorthand time in some arguments one will find that people say “no contamination”. When the Environmental Risk Management Authority was asked this question it said that one can never say that one is absolutely positively sure that no seeds have entered the country unless one tests every seed. In the testing of every seed one destroys every seed. The question that the officials were arguing about and trying to explain to people out there and to Ministers and to Cabinet was setting the statistical limit of tolerance to be able to detect down to 0.5 percent. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Does the Minister have confidence that agencies with responsibility for genetically modified organisms can carry out their responsibilities after the expiry of the moratorium on applications for general release? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes. Parliament imposed the moratorium to enable the Government to implement recommendations of the royal commission and to ensure the Environmental Risk Management Authority has the tools to do its job. The work included revising the law to include conditional release and that is the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill before the House; the strengthening of liability which is also in the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill before the House; a review of the Environmental Risk Management Authority; and a biotechnology strategy for New Zealand—to name a few. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Given the answer to the previous question will the Minister confirm that the Government has demanded that the Environmental Risk Management Authority develop more robust tools for analysis of economic cost benefits and risks but that officials do not have to report back until 31 October 2004 creating a 2-year vacuum from the time of the expiry of the moratorium? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: With due respect the questioner is actually confusing two different pieces of work. The Environmental Risk Management Authority has been working to strengthen its current decision-making methodology to take economic considerations into account and will have finished that strengthening of that work by the time the moratorium expires in October. Treasury and other people are involved in ongoing work which it is only wise to do on any possible monitoring of the markets out there in terms of economic impact. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Could the Minister please explain to the House what she meant when she told the Local Government and Environment Committee this morning that she resisted the temptation to read important technical reports because it might contaminate her thought processes and memories? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I will give a serious answer. When in 2002 a book was published that included reference to many papers and many arguments I decided at that time to concentrate absolutely on what had been given to me what had been told to me and what had been reported to me so that it was therefore a process of my decision-making and my advice to my colleagues in Cabinet—rather than reading all the reports and arguments that occurred between officials. There is a difference between argument between officials and advice officials give to Ministers. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Why did her officials involve the corn seed industry and its scientific and public relations advisers in the decisions about how to interpret test results and what to do about the Novartis corn that had been planted but not involve the organics industry or the neighbours of the farms where it had been planted? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I am not actually responsible for whom my officials engage with but I would make the point that officials did talk because it was the industry that raised the issue with the officials and they communicated backwards and forwards on that. It was not a decision about whether we pulled out the genetically modified corn. Because there was no genetically modified corn there was no need and there was no threat to the organic farmers next door. 
Larry Baldock 
: With regard to Labour’s 1999 election policy is the Minister prepared to be publicly accountable by using her call-in powers under the Hazardous Substances and Other Organisms Act if after the moratorium expires in October the Environmental Risk Management Authority receives an application that may have significant effects on the New Zealand economy? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Once the Environmental Risk Management Authority can receive applications on the release—in other words once the moratorium has been lifted—I will be advised of applications as they are received. In fact I am currently advised of applications as they are received. I am prepared to call in an application that may have significant economic impacts. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the Minister by my count on 23 occasions has said that there was no cover-up what is deliberately withholding from public release an important gap in the paper trail if it is not a cover-up? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I had released from my ministry all the documents that were known at the time. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: With reference back to the primary question about involving the public in decision making in what ways will she involve the 68 percent of the public who do not want the moratorium lifted in decisions about that moratorium? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I think that this Government has done the absolute ultimate. It has set up a royal commission which is the highest body we have for giving advice to the Government. That royal commission gave us the advice 2 years ago to proceed with caution. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the Minister deflected my earlier question about her repeated statements that there has been no cover-up and that a key document was not released can she simply answer how deliberately withholding an important gap in the paper trail as the Government did is not a cover-up? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I am making a presumption here because which document it is has not been stated in the House in that question. I presume the member is referring to the document from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. I undertake that that document was advice on top of a Cabinet paper so it does not add any significance. However it was explained very clearly this morning by the chief executive officer of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet when he was giving the reasons that he withheld that document. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister say to Parliament that the document was of no significance when the official who attended more meetings than any other Ruth Wilkie said in a note to the head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet that it left an important gap in the paper trail.? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: There were two documents and I understand that the document that is sometimes quoted by Dr Smith is a document that is the cover page which adds no more information than is in the Cabinet paper that was released to the public. 
Economy—Current Position 
5.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What recent economic data has he received and what do they show about the state of the economy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Business confidence continues to rebound. House prices are rising increasing household net wealth and the latest National Bank regional trend survey showed 11 of 14 regions recorded growth in the last quarter which was expected to be a weak one. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: How is the New Zealand economy performing relative to other economies and how is this affecting international perceptions? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Very well. Fitch Ratings the third of the big three international credit-ratings agencies recently upgraded our foreign currency rating from AA to AA+. It quoted the economy’s strong performance its increasing resilience to external shocks sustained improvements in the public finances and a clear sense of private-sector external debt risk management. 
Hon David Carter 
: With the Minister congratulating himself on the usual springtime blip in business sentiment is he prepared to reinstate the Prime Minister’s early promise to New Zealand—namely to get New Zealand back into the top half of the OECD by 2012? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can say with absolute confidence that no Government Minister ever thought about getting back into the top half of the OECD by 2012. If the member wants to ask the right question the date was 2011 and that target has not been used for a long time. 
Dail Jones 
: Has the Minister read the economic data from Quotable Value New Zealand showing house price inflation at 14.2 percent nationally and the Statistics New Zealand economic data showing an estimated trade deficit for July of $471 million with exports down by 9.7 percent which is the largest July deficit from the last 17 years; if so does he have any concern for the difficulties of potential first-home buyers and exporters due to the poor state of the New Zealand economy after 4 years of a Labour Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is actually 3? years but never mind—I am sure to the Opposition it seems like 4 years. The high level of the New Zealand dollar which is a consequence of the fall of the US dollar is certainly a problem for the exporting sector and is obviously leading to substantial expansion of the current account deficit. The domestic economy continues to perform very strongly indeed. There are signs of the US dollar beginning to pick up which hopefully will reflect in the value of the New Zealand dollar before too long. 
Rod Donald 
: Is the Minister concerned about the July trade deficit just mentioned—the worst in 17 years—and the fact that the July year trade deficit of over $3 billion was the worst in New Zealand’s history; and will he commit to extending the tariff freeze in order to help keep the trade deficit in check? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The average New Zealand trade-weighted tariff is less than 1 percent. The amount spent on imported shoes and cheap clothing is not a massive factor in New Zealand’s total external current account deficit. If we are to go to the Doha round and expect people to expect to sign up to free trade in agriculture increasing protection in New Zealand is not a very powerful counterargument. 
Maori Television Service—Progress 
6.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: What Government decisions and other major steps remain to be taken for the Maori Television Service to commence transmission and what is the projected on-air date? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 The to-air date is still dependent on a number of operational activities as identified in the Maori Television Service’s 2003-04 statement of intent. Good progress on these operational activities has been made. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Minister recall a press statement from the Prime Minister on 24 July 2001 announcing that “A Maori Television Service will be on air from June 2002”; and can the Minister explain to the House why 14 months later the Maori Television Service is not on air has no on-air date has no contracted transmission services and has so far appointed and lost two chief executives? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I can recall in July 2001 the announcement of the establishment of the Maori Television Service including the intended on-air date of June 2002. That time line has changed because legislation was not passed until May 2003—this year. A revised operational budget was approved earlier this year but an initial chief executive officer appointment and the present one have created delays. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Can the Minister outline for the House why it is important to have a Maori television channel? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can briefly comment on that. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Both the Crown and Maori recognise obligations to protect and promote te reo Maori as a taonga. The previous National Government gave undertakings in the broadcasting assets case in 1991 to provide for Maori television as one means of meeting that obligation. We will get it done. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Will the Minister confirm that he knows exactly what happened at the Maori Television Service between Derek Fox and Joanna Paul; and that he and the Government are sitting on this knowledge in case Mr Fox who came within 695 votes of beating this Minister at the 1999 general election should decide to resurrect his political party stand against this Minister and beat him? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: As I have said repeatedly anybody can stand against me and amass the figures and the distance between this member in the last election and the Opposition. That matter is a board matter. To dwell on the filthiness that keeps on in some people’s minds is not the issue; it is an issue for the board. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister agree that although the Maori Television Service’s statement of intent mentions goals in its 5-year plan—like building a sustainable audience and normalising te reo—should not the primary goal listed on the 5-year strategic plan be for the service to be on air first; if so why has the Government so far ignored the option of the eminently more modern cost-effective and ready-to-go Sky television platform? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: There are still decisions to be made and Cabinet needs to make a decision along with the board. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister has described the departing chief executive Mr Derek Fox as “the pre-eminent Maori broadcaster of his generation” yet the Maori Television Service is already 14 months past its stated on-air date and has no new on-air date has now appointed and lost two chief executives and still has no contracted transmission arrangements; if that is the case what else would have gone wrong if the Government had not appointed the Prime Minister’s “pre-eminent Maori broadcaster of his generation” to lead the project? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Mr Fox’s prowess and experience in this field is well known both in Maoridom and in the rest of the country. There are slippages as there were when that member was the Minister. 
Deborah Coddington 
: How can this Government claim to be opposed to sexual harassment and violence against women in the workplace and not demand that the Maori Television Service board undertake a full and complete investigation into exactly what happened with this Government’s appointee at Maori Television Service? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question is about transmission. It is not about that particular issue. That particular issue can be put down as another question at another time. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I notice that when Dr Nick Smith called out whilst a question was being asked he was immediately ejected from the Chamber. We have just had an example—and you know exactly who it was—of a Labour back-bencher who interjected on you when you were on your feet. I notice that he has not been ejected. I think there should be some balance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now that the member has brought the matter to my attention I ask the member concerned to leave the Chamber. 
Mark Peck withdrew from the Chamber. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to get a degree of consistency about the way in which questions are ruled as being appropriate or inappropriate. You might recall that yesterday a supplementary question was asked by I think David Parker from the back of the House that in my view was a mile wide of the stumps when it came to being in line with the substantive question. I think the ruling that came from you related to the fact that there was at least a vague reference to matters that were of concern in the thread of the question. When Deborah Coddington asked her question today it would be a wild stretch of the imagination to suggest that the current difficulties at the Maori Television Service which have seen the chief executive exit and the various rumours and other allegations that circulate around that exit are not part of the problem that has prevented the service getting to transmission and that is going beyond the pale. Quite clearly this organisation has been dysfunctional for one reason or another for a very long period of time and that is surely part of it. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any further assistance on this matter. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I have a— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. I have heard the point of order and I do not need any further assistance. Will the member please read the Standing Orders. I looked at the original question and I took advice. The question asked by Deborah Coddington was outside the scope of the original question. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on that. I am not relitigating your decision at all but I think the point that has been made here is that my colleague’s question is probably the reason that the transmission is not occurring. That is the point that she wished to make—that is that there have been a number of problems within Maori television. We can only presume that those problems directly relate to the issue of the lack of transmission. I ask you to reflect on that because I think my colleague’s question was a very reasonable one. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have reflected on that question and if that had been the question that was put down it would have been answered. 
Te Mangai Paho—Maori Sportscasting International 
7.  
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: On what date did Te Mangai Paho’s former Chief Executive Mr Trevor Moeke discover that Mr Tame Te Rangi had received cash from Maori Sportscasting International and who were the officials responsible for advising him on his reply to question for written answer No. 257 provided on 24 February where he stated: “I am advised by my officials that there have been no payments of cash by Maori Sportscasting International to any employees of Te Mangai Paho.”? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I am advised by my officials that the former chief executive could not confirm that any cash payments were made until the external review into the activities concerning Mr Te Rangi commenced in March 2003. When questioned by the former chief executive on previous occasions Mr Te Rangi denied receiving any payments. Officials responsible for the original answers were from Te Mangai Paho. 
Rodney Hide 
: How does he square the answer he has just given with the emails he has released to me under the Official Information Act from Mr Trevor Moeke to Tame Te Rangi and the replies which state that on 21 February Mr Tame Te Rangi advised Trevor Moeke that he had been receiving cash from Maori Sportscasting International? I repeat that this Minister released those emails to me under the Official Information Act. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Quite simply at that time nobody informed the Minister. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on that answer to my question. The Minister has clearly given an incorrect answer to my primary question where he stated that Mr Trevor Moeke did not know. I then pointed out that Trevor Moeke did know on 21 February. I asked him what was going on and he just flicked it away and said that no one told the Minister. If that were the standard this Minister would not answer any questions in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question. 
Darren Hughes 
: What feedback did he receive on the external review concerning Tame Te Rangi which was undertaken by Te Puni Kokiri and Treasury? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I know that Mr Rodney Hide wrote to both the Secretary to the Treasury and the chief executive of Te Puni Kokiri to thank them and the joint team for the very good work they did in preparing the report dated 4 June 2003. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again I draw your attention to the fact that Trevor Mallard yelled out very loudly while the Minister was on his feet answering his question—so loudly that we could hear him at the back of the House. When the Hon Dr Nick Smith did that he was ejected from the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I have not ruled out interjections while answers are being given at all. There will be no interjections during the question. The member knows that and he should keep quiet. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Before he released the emails can the Minister recall reading that the response that Mr Hide has just reported in his question was in response to a request from his officials that said these words: “The Minister would like to know who the staff member was from TMP and what events were attended. The answer will not be included in the response but the Minister would like to know in case he is asked.” and can he explain to the House how he could possibly have given two incorrect answers subsequently to a question for which the officials had clearly requested information to give to him? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: There were corrections on 11 June and the Minister is only as good as the officials’ advice. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Minister explain why he told the House on 24 February in answer to a written question that his officials had advised him that no cash had been paid to any employee of Te Mangai Paho when he has released to me an email from Mr Trevor Moeke to Mr Tame Te Rangi that says: “Re PQ257 thanks. What were the amounts in detail and in total and how were the payments made?” and Tame Te Rangi replied: “The payments were cash. I have no recollection of the amounts.”? That email was on 21 February; the Minister answered falsely on 24 February. Is this another example of this Government and this Minister with officials lying in unison? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will stand withdraw and apologise right now for any suggestion that any member of this House is telling a lie. 
Rodney Hide 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can address any part of the question but not that part. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: As that member knows when he first waved around the supposed emails he had containing that information that was advice given to me. It was followed through at that time. I released all the information to him which took hours of officials time. All of that is in the report and he knows that full well. 
Rodney Hide 
: I seek leave of the House to table the emails that took no time to assemble because the Treasury had done that as part of its brief. They were released by his ministry and he pretends not to know about them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those emails. Is there any objection? There is. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to get a clearer picture on your ruling that suggests that Mr Hide could not use the term “lying in unison” to suggest that members of this House were lying. If I recall his question he certainly did say “if Ministers and officials”—in other words Ministers and officials “lying in unison”. The point I want to make is that increasingly we are being told by Ministers that it is the fault of officials or that officials acted without ministerial authority or that officials have gone off and done something unbeknown to the Minister. We know from the record that the term “lying in unison” was suggested by a group of officials. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please come to the point very tersely. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I am coming to my point very tersely. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well no the member is not— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If we are not allowed to associate a bureaucrat suggesting to other bureaucrats that to protect the Minister the way through the issue is to lie in unison then where is the line between accountability for departmental matters and a Minister’s responsibility? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is perfectly entitled to suggest that. What the member was ruled out of order for was associating the Minister with lying and that is out of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That is exactly the point I am making. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well that is out of order and if there is any suggestion that the Minister is lying there is a particular way of writing to me about that matter where the Minister is accountable. 
Reading and Writing—Primary Schools 
8.  
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What initiatives are being introduced to improve teacher responsiveness to students’ reading and writing difficulties at primary school level? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 This morning I released a new book called “ 
Effective Literacy Practice in Years 1 to 4” 
. I expect that this publication will have a significant impact on developing successful reading and writing skills for children. 
Helen Duncan 
: How does this initiative fit within the Government’s wider programme to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes for our school students? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: One of this Government’s top education priorities is to make sure that all children regardless of their background and life experiences have the chance to reach their full potential. This initiative is an important part of that. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the need for this initiative demonstrate that many teachers are not adequately prepared through their pre-service training to provide appropriate analysis and remediation in these core curriculum areas; if so what is he doing about pre-service training programmes to ensure that all teachers are adequately equipped? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. An important part of the work this Government is doing through the Tertiary Education Advisory Commission and the Teachers Council is to work towards improving the standards of pre-service teacher education. One of the advantages we now have is high-quality research that tells us what should be done—something that has not been available up until the last couple of years. 
Driving Licences—Fees for Older Drivers 
9.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What law changes if any are being considered to ease the cost of renewing driving licences for drivers 80 years and over? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The Government has addressed the cost issue by reducing the application fee for older drivers’ licences from around $36 to $18.30 and retaining the older driver test fee at $41 rather than increasing it to the actual cost of $49. Older drivers also have been offered one free re-test if they are not successful in their first attempt. In addition I am considering a range of other proposals to do with older driver testing and decisions and announcements will be made in due course. 
Peter Brown 
: When can we expect these further changes to take effect and by how much will they reduce the current cost? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: In due course and those issues are all under consideration. 
Peter Brown 
: When the Hon Ruth Dyson was speaking in a public meeting in Nelson the other day she said that several law changes were being considered around costs and the driving licence regime for older drivers. Will the Minister tell me whether she was speaking the truth or was it a figment of her imagination? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That member always speaks the truth. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table this newspaper cutting that states: “Dyson pledges to ease the way for older drivers”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Seabirds—Fishing Vessels 
10.  
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: What is the Government doing to protect seabirds from incidental catch by fishing vessels? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 Recently the Minister of Conservation and I released for public consultation a draft plan of action to reduce seabird deaths caused by fishing. This plan supports voluntary measures being taken by the fishing industry to reduce seabird deaths but provides for the Government to introduce mandatory measures if the voluntary approach fails. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Could the Minister detail the specific measures that will be introduced under this plan and when they will take effect? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The plan proposes that codes of practice for managing seabird by-catch in key fisheries are developed by mid-2004. These codes will specify fishing practices limits on seabird deaths public awareness and compliance measures and penalties for non-compliance. 
Food Safety Minister—Confidence 
11.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister for Food Safety in light of the Minister’s inability in this House yesterday to name the food products that tested positive for contamination by genetically engineered ingredients in the recent New Zealand Food Safety Authority report on food produced using gene technology; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister)  
on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: 
 Yes because she is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does she agree that parents feeding their babies soy infant formula have a right to know which infant formulas contain unlabelled GE soy; if so why does she have confidence in a Minister who is suppressing this information? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister is not suppressing the information. Like many other surveillance and audit samples the tests are aimed at ensuring compliance with the law. Compliance was confirmed in this case no further action was taken and the names of the products are therefore not reported. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Is it little wonder that more and more people distrust GM when they simply cannot trust the PM? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I note in the latest opinion polls that the Prime Minister was the first choice of some 40-odd percent of the public. I think the level of support for the Leader of the Opposition was below the tolerance level for GM content. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why does she have confidence in her Minister for Food Safety when scientific bodies such as the UK Royal Society have expressed severe reservations about the safety of GE infant food when it has never been tested on humans or babies or for its long-term health effects yet her Minister is allowing such contaminated food to be fed to New Zealand babies? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The evidence so far is that there may be some benefits and some detriments involved in the feeding of soy products to infants but the clear position of the New Zealand Government is that the priority is first breast milk; second cows milk; and third—a long way behind—soy formula. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Is the Prime Minister concerned that the lack of public confidence in her Minister for Food Safety is resulting in groups like Mothers Against Genetic Engineering calling on parents in New Zealand to boycott all soy infant formula in the marketplace until such time as the Minister discloses which brands have been found to be contaminated with GE; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There is no evidence that soy formula that contains GE products is any more or less harmful than ordinary soy products. 
Marlborough Mayor—Iwi Consultation 
12.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Deputy Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement regarding the mayor of Marlborough that: “If the Marlborough Regional (sic) Council had talked properly in the first place to the iwi with interests if they had not had a racist as a mayor … if there had been proper talking to at the local authority level in Marlborough it is very doubtful this issue would ever have arisen in the way that it has.”; if so why does he believe that Mr Harrison is a racist? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes in very large part with one exception. Clearly the current mayor was not mayor at the time the original applications were made. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: In the light of the fact that Mr Harrison was not a member of the council at the time eight South Island iwi laid claim to the Marlborough Sounds seabed and foreshore why is he blaming and naming a person who was not even involved at the time; is it not the case that if someone disagrees with this Government on Maori issues that person is simply labelled a racist? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No though Mr Harrison was a member of the resource consents committee deciding marine farm applications. I certainly think that the mayor in stating that those iwi who won the Court of Appeal case were Maori bully boys was going well beyond the grounds of reasonable public discourse. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: In the light of his false misleading and defamatory remarks regarding the Marlborough mayor Mr Tom Harrison will he now apologise to Mr Harrison; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I said the mayor was not mayor at the time the original applications were made but he has made a range of extraordinary comments. For example he says Parliament is dominated by feminists homosexuals politically correct zombies and separatists. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s on your side! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Even if that is meant to be a summary of the Labour Party we are under half the House. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the mayor Tom Harrison to the Speaker of the House of Representatives talking about the grossly misleading statements made in the House of Representatives by the Deputy Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just so I do not get myself in trouble in future can I take it that as the Deputy Prime Minister thinks that a man who describes people as Maori bully boys is a racist and given the rhetoric that he levelled at Tau Henare Rana Waitai and Tuku Morgan I can call all the Labour members racists legally and legitimately? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that is not a point of order. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just seek clarification. Did we have an objection to table this document? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No there was no objection. I said there was none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I probably should know the answer to this but I seek your advice. Does Mr Harrison have any recourse to have his viewpoint heard by this House if so what can be done? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should read the Standing Orders and he will see that there is a course of action he can follow. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to repeat outside Parliament his allegations that the mayor of Marlborough is a racist; if not will he do the decent thing retract his statement and apologise to Mr Harrison right now? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said anybody who can refer to the leaders of the iwi who won the case in the Court of Appeal as Maori bully boys I think has a rather strange view of life. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister did not address the question at all. I ask you to ask him to do that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the Minister did address the question. I thought the implication was that he was not going to withdraw. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect in short he was asked whether if he believed what he said he was prepared to say those same words outside Parliament. That is the question we all heard him being asked. He did not answer it. He sought to evade the question by reference to a comment he had already made which did not have any bearing on the question and had not been raised by the questioner. He should be asked now to answer the question. It was a simple and plain question: “Have you got the courage to say outside Parliament what you say inside it?”. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I intend to follow the example frequently demonstrated by that particular member in this kind of case. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No Mr Speaker you’re not getting away with that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I am not satisfied with that answer. I want the Minister to address the question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Which meant no.