Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:646;Page:15393] 
Questions to Ministers 
Tax Cuts—Funding 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she agree with the Minister of Finance that “tax cuts are not self-funding. If unaccompanied by expenditure cuts they simply lead to burgeoning deficits and debt”; if not why not? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 It is not often a Leader of the Opposition gets applauded just for being able to ask a question. The Minister of Finance is correct to argue that there are always opportunity costs attached to revenue reductions. The impact of these is greatly lessened if the Government has been adopting a strong fiscal stance over a period of years—which this Government has been. 
John Key 
: Is it the intention of the Government to stick to the spending allowances for Budget 2008 as outlined in the Budget Policy Statement which were $3.1 billion in operating spending including the business tax package and a $1.5 billion revenue reduction; if not what are the Acting Prime Minister’s best estimates of the variances of those allowances? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Clearly if there are going to be any significant revenue reductions then that cannot be accommodated within that $3.1 billion. 
Tim Barnett 
: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports on whether the Minister of Finance was in his recent comments expressing his personal views or his views as Minister? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The views are expressed in the 2005 Budget speech in relation to the United States and of course are both the Minister’s personal views and therefore by definition the Government’s views as well given it was the Budget speech. But that is quite different from the situation where Mr Key called to increase net debt to 25 percent—something that Mr English said had never been one of National’s policies. Presumably Mr Key does have a personal view even if it is only on Government debt. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister agree then that if the new spending component in the Budget is to be stuck to at $3.1 billion as per the Budget Policy Statement then the size of the tax package if it is in excess of $1.5 billion as noted in the Budget Policy Statement has to cut into the new Budget spending component? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government has set four tests for any tax cuts that are incorporated in this Budget. The Minister of Finance has noted that it is quite clear that it does not matter what the Government does as Mr Key will promise bigger tax cuts no matter what the impact would be on the provision of social services or the long-term debt track. The Government’s basic debt anchor will be reaffirmed in this year’s Budget as being at around 20 percent of GDP. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked the Acting Prime Minister a pretty simple question which was if the new Budget spend is to be $3.1 billion and the revenue reduction is to be $1.5 billion would he confirm that if the tax package is larger than that it would cut into the new Budget spend? It is a relatively simple question to answer. Maybe he would like to do that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Acting Prime Minister did in fact address the question and as members know the Standing Orders do not provide that specific answers have to be given to questions. A Minister must just address the question. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not want to disagree with your ruling Madam Speaker but I do not think he did answer the question unless the point that he was making was that allowing debt to rise to 20 percent of GDP from the 18 percent it is at today would indicate that the tax package would in fact be adding to his borrowing programme—and I am not sure— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well that is all very interesting. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Could the Prime Minister clarify whether when her Minister of Finance said in the House last week that the programme of tax cuts over a 3-year period that he will announce on Budget day will in each of those years exceed indexation he was saying that they will exceed inflation over just that forecast period or that they will exceed the cumulative inflation of 23.8 percent since 1 April 2000 plus the forecast over the next 3-year period? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the member is mixed up between various elements here. I think what he means by “indexation” is the movement of thresholds. That translates into a certain level of tax reduction. I indicated last week that I am pretty confident at this point that the actual tax reductions will be larger than what would have followed from indexation. 
John Key 
: Can the Acting Prime Minister confirm what he already seems to have said today—that in fact the ratio of debt to GDP will be rising from about 18 percent where it is today to about 20 percent as a result of the fact that the Government’s tax package when added on to the new Budget spending component cannot fit within the current debt profile? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can confirm that the Government’s debt targets remain unchanged. It was the member who suggested that the Government was too low-geared and should increase its debt target to at least 25 percent of GDP—that is in debt servicing costs an increase of $700 million a year. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with her Minister of Finance when he said that tax cuts that give people more than $10 a week are affordable but economically irresponsible but that cuts that deliver less than $10 a week are not worth having—in which case can she tell us what sorts of tax cuts we are in for in the 2008 Budget: ones that are economically irresponsible or ones that are not worth having? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member has lost so much money in the last few months that he might be quite pleased by the size of the tax cuts. But these tax cuts will be fair and equitable. They will not lead to a reduction in social services and they will not place further pressure upon inflation. 
Tim Barnett 
: What would be the impact of increasing the deficit in debt to 25 percent of GDP? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: A debt ratio of 25 percent of GDP would require an additional $700 million a year of expenditure on servicing that debt. That would have to squeeze out other opportunities. 
John Key 
: Has the Prime Minister noted the track record of her Minister of Finance which is that he promises tax cuts and then does not actually get to deliver them to New Zealanders; and is the reason that the first tranche of the tax cuts will probably come in before the election that even the Prime Minister does not trust the Minister of Finance to roll them out after the election? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister trusts the Minister of Finance both to ask and to answer questions in Parliament—unlike that member’s deputy. 
John Key 
: Has the Minister of Finance noticed that in the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research’s business survey that was out today confidence has fallen to a 33-year low and that one of the reasons it is at a 33-year low is that people have been talking down the economy—in which case did the Minister of Finance help that process when he talked about an oncoming recession? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We have the extraordinary sight of the Leader of the Opposition being desperate to talk up the economy so that he can justify unsustainable tax cut promises. I remind him that the general business confidence survey was at its lowest in December 2005 and that after that the economy grew. It has been in negative territory for about 5 years during which we have had the longest period of economic growth for well over a generation. There is a disconnect between these surveys and what the economy does. 
Heather Roy 
: How can the Minister deny that tax cuts stimulate economic growth and increase tax revenues; and why does he ignore the fact that New Zealand could take the lead of any number of former Eastern European socialist countries which with lower flatter rates of tax experienced much higher real growth in 2006 than New Zealand did—countries such as Estonia with 11.2 percent growth Latvia with 11.9 percent growth and Lithuania with 7.5 percent growth? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I thought almost anybody in the world had long since got away from the belief that if we keep cutting taxes revenue keeps increasing faster. What would happen at the point when we reached a zero tax rate is not clear as a piece of logic. But if the world were full of such free rides then ACT would not be at 1.1 percent or whatever it is at in the public opinion polls. 
Historic Treaty Claims—Resolution 
2.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What progress has been made in resolving historic treaty claims in the central North Island? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Very good progress. On Friday I received a proposal from the central North Island iwi collective that was a very positive step forward in the innovative process of settling the central North Island forest lands commercial claims. This was presented at Waihi and was supported by hundreds of leaders and people from the various involved iwi. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: In congratulating the Minister and the central North Island iwi collective I ask whether he can tell the House what reports he has seen on reaction to this excellent progress. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The proposal was clearly welcomed enthusiastically by the iwi involved and I indicated that it was very much the basis on which the Government would be able to talk about a final settlement. I was very pleased particularly to see a statement of support from the Maori Party and the presence in support of Te Ururoa Flavell. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What about us? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: And New Zealand First whose support in all matters is always welcome including in some others we have yet to come to today. I also noticed that since the terms of agreement were signed in February Te Pumautanga o te Arawa has agreed to work with the collective to develop the settlement proposal. I would like to congratulate the iwi collective on its determination to develop a proposal that can be considered by the Crown. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: What other reports has the Minister seen on reaction to last week’s excellent progress? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I was surprised to receive a report from Mr John Key stating that he was sceptical that the process would be successful in which he seemed to be unaware that he was criticising a process that is in fact iwi-led and iwi-initiated. This seems very odd as his own party member the Hon Georgina te Heuheu has lent her weight to the process and it will come as a great disappointment to the other 100000 people involved in this. 
Electoral Finance Act—Third Party Registration 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is it Government policy that individuals involved in the administration of a political party cannot register as a third party under the Electoral Finance Act 2007 but bodies involved in the administration of a political party can; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The intention of Parliament is contained in the Act. Registration of third parties is the responsibility of the Electoral Commission not the Minister of Justice. The purpose of the third-party provisions is to ensure that New Zealand’s electoral system is open and transparent and that those who participate are identifiable. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can she confirm that the Electoral Commission’s ruling on Friday made under Labour’s legislation means that no matter how closely any group is linked to a political party that group can still register as a third party and spend another $120000 on election advertisements on top of the party’s election expenses cap? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The decision that was made by the Electoral Commission on Friday came after it had got a Crown Law opinion. It is up to the Electoral Commission to decide whom it will register as a third party. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Has the Minister seen reports that criticise the Electoral Finance Act and does she believe that Mr English sensationalised and overstated concerns with regard to the Act and now finds that it is neither as restrictive nor as Draconian as he previously had portrayed it? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think it is fair to say that Mr English and the National Party have over-egged the whole debate for political purposes and that is because the biggest rorter of the old system was the National Party. That party’s plan to buy the 2005 election was found out and it does not like the new systems in place which make it more accountable. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the only egg around is the egg on Labour’s face given that it spent 2 years lecturing everyone else on keeping the law after it had broken it in the 2005 election then was the first to breach the Electoral Finance Act which that party itself had passed; and why does Labour deserve not to be referred to the police like every other party will be? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think I will wait to see whether there will be any egg on anyone’s face because I have to tell the House that the National Party bumper stickers I am holding have no authorisation on them and no electoral agent on them. Any member of the public of New Zealand can pick them up right now and they say “Party vote National”. They are on their way to the Electoral Commission for it to decide whether there will be some egg on the National Party’s face because its members are the ones who have been berating every other party in this House for not keeping to the rules. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In respect of the Electoral Act 2007 and the administration of political parties and democratic procedures what reports has she received in respect of an injunction brought in the High Court in Christchurch regarding the Selwyn National Party selection—a second court hearing I might add—in which the judge found that there was a case to answer that the National Party did not follow democratic procedures but rather sought to prop up one of the most hopeless and useless members of Parliament Mr David Carter who is on the front bench of the National Party? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is outside the scope of the original question which was quite specific to administration and those matters under that Act. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I could quite easily have asked whether the Electoral Commissioner could have decided this issue because I am talking about section 71 of the Electoral Act and she has responsibility for that. That is why I could have put the question to the Minister in terms of the Electoral Commissioner’s responsibilities for democratic procedures. But in this case ipso facto a court judge has already made the decision. That is why it is relevant. I ask whether I can rephrase the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the matter but of course the member is entitled to ask another supplementary question. But I have another supplementary question first from the Hon Bill English. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that the Electoral Commission’s ruling last week to allow the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union to register as a third party means that groups such as Young Labour Rainbow Labour and every Labour Party electorate branch will be able to register as a third party and every one of those groups could legally spend a further $120000 on election advertisements on top of Labour’s allocation? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I would say to those groups that they might like to have a go at registering but I very much doubt that their attempts would be accepted. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister intend to refer to the Electoral Commissioner an article—and its substance—from the Christchurch  
Press 
 in respect of a High Court decision to do with party political undemocratic procedures related to the Selwyn electorate with two occasions now on which the nomination for the seat has been reopened; if so why? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you would give a ruling on whether this matter is sub judice or in fact is the Minister being asked to decide that it is not? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That is pretty typical is it not? The decision of the court has been published. How on earth could the case be sub judice now? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members want to remain in this Chamber they will hear points of order in silence. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It is a long time since the Rt Hon Winston Peters practised law. It is an interim injunction and therefore it is part of an ongoing case. The case is still substantially before the courts. It is sub judice. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: One should not have to repeat this point. There would have been a case for it being sub judice pending the hearing of the injunction proceedings but that hearing is complete. Justice Panckhurst has given his decision. He said the National Party acted undemocratically and that is why the procedure has been suspended. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No he didn’t; he did not. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes he did. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is to be heard in silence. Dr Smith that is your last warning. Would the member please complete his point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The judge has decided that there is a substantive case to be answered that the Selwyn candidate proceedings were undemocratic. The decision has been announced. There is no court case pending at the moment. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes but if I understood what Mr Brownlee said it is in fact an interim injunction and I want to check that point. I rule the question out of order at this stage. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister heard reports that over the weekend the Labour Party deleted a page from its website that explained the close links between Labour and its trade union affiliates and does she think that Labour’s effort to remove that page from the website mean that the Government is being open and transparent— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s called the Labour Party! 
Hon Bill English 
: —so why did Labour take it off the website—about the links between it the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union and the Service and Food Workers Union when it deletes information from Labour’s website detailing how closely tied they are? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I have not heard any such reports. I would think that hardly any New Zealander would not know that there has been a link between the union movement and Labour for almost 90 years. 
Hon Bill English 
: If as the Minister stated the purpose of the legislation was to stop groups that are closely affiliated to political parties from registering as third parties and spending large amounts of money on attacking Labour’s opponents why does she endorse the Electoral Commission’s view that unions that are represented on Labour’s ruling council are able to register as third parties in order to attack National? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I support the decision of the Electoral Commission which was backed up by a Crown Law opinion. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a Christchurch  
Press 
 article that says that last year Mr David Carter MP was declared the National Party candidate for Selwyn every other candidate having been pressured to stand down— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —that this matter has been the subject of an injunction and now he is— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —going to stand on the list. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We note that Mr Peters was able to read at length the content of the document which everyone has agreed he can freely table—it is not unusual for people to get access to information already published in newspapers. We also notice that when National members seek leave to table documents they do not get that same opportunity to point to the most salient matters in the documents and that you rather quickly move to seek the leave of the House for the tabling. We would like some consistency if we could. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member; I understand his point. I do not think it is specific to only one party. I am endeavouring to enforce Speakers’ rulings 135/7 and 136/3. I attempt to ensure that when members seek leave to table documents they do so succinctly and that it is not used as an opportunity to make another speech. Members need to know exactly what is in the document and that is what I endeavour to do. 
Election Spending—Parliamentary Service Funding 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is it Government policy that Parliamentary Service - funded materials similar to the 2005 pledge card produced by the Labour leader’s office should not count towards a party’s election expenses; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The intention of Parliament is contained in the Electoral Finance Act. The Electoral Commission is responsible for determining what constitutes election advertising. The responsibility for Parliamentary Service’s funding does not lie with the Minister of Justice; it is the responsibility of another Minister. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell us why material such as the Government’s pamphlet entitled  
We’re Making a Difference for Everyone 
 found to be an election advertisement for the Labour Party and paid for out of taxpayers’ money that was provided by Parliamentary Service should not count towards Labour’s election spending cap? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Electoral Commission has ruled that the pamphlet  
We’re Making a Difference for Everyone 
 which was printed published and distributed last year—one copy of which we believe was inadvertently handed out this year—will have to be apportioned against Labour Party expenses. That will happen. I suspect it could be around 10 or 20c. But then of course this “Join the Conversation” card was printed this year— 
Hon Members 
: Oh no! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Oh yes it was! It was handed out this year and it was paid for by Parliament. Maybe it ought to be checked out as well. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Minister answer the question I asked which was why should something that the Electoral Commission determined is an election advertisement not count towards the election expenses of the Labour Party? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The National Party members surrounding the member were shouting so loud he did not hear my answer. He did not listen to the answer because he is too busy thinking of the next question. I said that the pamphlet has been ruled as an election advertisement by the Electoral Commission. Any of those pamphlets that have been distributed this year have to count against the Labour Party. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does that answer mean that material referred to in an email from Kath Allen senior communications adviser in the Prime Minister’s office where she clearly instructs Labour MPs to use a new version of a pamphlet authorised by Labour Party Secretary Mike Smith should also be counted as a Labour election expense; and does the email not confirm that material funded by the taxpayer and acknowledged by Labour to be an election advertisement is being organised by the Prime Minister’s office and that Labour is trying to avoid its being counted as an election expense? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No; and no. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Minister table the 1 April pack for MPs referred to by Kath Allen senior communications adviser in the Prime Minister’s office— 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: He cannot ask me to table it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member should please just continue with the question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Actually in a question I can ask for it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You can ask. You can seek the leave of the House. Everybody knows that. Would you please continue the question. Start again. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Minister table the 1 April pack held by Labour MPs referred to in the email from Kath Allen senior communications adviser in the Prime Minister’s office so we can find out for sure that Labour is using taxpayers’ money to fund material it knows is an election advertisement and is trying to avoid it being counted as an election expense? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I will not table it for one simple reason: because it is not anything to do with the National Party to begin with. Secondly it has not been distributed to any member of the public so it does not have to count against anything. The National Party received an email that was destined for Labour members and has decided to use it. That could have been done by other members of this House including myself who have received emails destined just for National members but have decided that it would be a mistake and have never used them. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm the mess and chaos her legislation created when Labour put into the Electoral Finance Act a clause that was an attempt to exclude any publicly funded material from counting as an election expense and that now members of Parliament are finding out that material that is funded by parliamentary funds can be an election advertisement when she thought she had excluded it and could be an election expense when she thought she had excluded it? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: All I can say to that member is that if he is in any doubt about what he ought to do and what his party ought to do he should get advice from the Electoral Commission. It is giving out very good advice. What the National Party wants to do is pick and choose from that advice. It accepts the Electoral Commission’s decision on the Labour Party booklet but it does not accept the Electoral Commission’s decision on a third party being able to register. Those members cannot pick and choose—either they believe the commission is doing the job or they do not. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Electoral Finance Act was put together by Labour as a way of punishing its critics that it was done so badly that all parties in this House including her own are struggling day by day to work out how to comply with it and that the only exception is that Labour members believe they are above the law and should not be referred to the police when they break it? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: First of all the Labour Party does not believe it is above the law. I suspect that the National Party does because it has had this material on its website since 12 January this year; the public can get it off the website and it is not authorised as an election advertisement. Secondly the Labour Party did not bring in the Act to regulate other parties in this House. The Act was brought in to address the old rorters across on the other side of the House who were busy with their fingers in the pockets of big business trying to buy an election and who were caught out by very good detective work by the Green Party. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister might want to correct the impression she has given the House. National has not used that kind of insignia for a long time and the Minister has now just confirmed that she printed it off a website. It was not actually published yet she claimed earlier it had been published and distributed. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: This material is available to members of the public today. A member of the public took this off the National Party website. It says: “Vote National Party. Party vote National.” It is not authorised in any way at all. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Minister confirm that the 1 April material referred to outlined things such as the cut in business tax the introduction of employer contributions on KiwiSaver the increase in the minimum wage and the removal of the cap on charitable giving; if so is she prepared to support amending legislation to allow the National Party to publicise to all households in the country the fact that it opposed all of those measures? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not actually think it is necessary. I think that most members of the public in New Zealand know that the National Party has opposed everything this Government has done to help working people in New Zealand. I do not think we need to tell the public that; they know it. 
Free-trade Agreement New Zealand - China—Primary Production 
5.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Is she concerned that the preferential trade deal with China risks New Zealand becoming little else but a producer of raw primary products again; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 No; in part because I think the member’s question misrepresents the nature of much of our primary production and also because our specialised manufacturers will also gain an advantage. A good number of those manufacturers are currently in China exploring opportunities. The agreement provides considerable benefits in areas such as education environmental services engineering computer services and investment. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that New Zealand’s contribution to climate change will get worse if this deal as predicted leads to an unrestrained expansion of dairy; and is this what she had in mind when she said that New Zealand would lead the world in going carbon neutral? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The thing that we have to achieve in New Zealand is the ability to expand our agricultural production while reducing our carbon footprint. There is no answer to New Zealand’s economic and social future in simply trying to go backwards 250 years to some kind of imagined heaven in which we danced around maypoles but unfortunately died in large numbers before the age of 1. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether New Zealand is “little more than a producer of raw primary products” or are New Zealand’s primary products based on enormous investment in highly advanced scientific research and development and world-leading technology right across the supply chain? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: This country has invested heavily in world-leading research and development in primary production added-value processing and marketing in distance markets. That investment has made us a producer of a choice of high-value food and pastoral products—including wine and other products—in affluent markets including the emerging middle-class markets in China and India. The Fast Forward programme of a $700 million investment in these areas is another sign of this Government’s commitment to intensifying those processes. 
Sue Bradford 
: What does the Prime Minister expect that the preferential trade agreement with China will do to New Zealand’s level of debt given that our agreement with a tiny country like Singapore has actually increased our balance of payments deficit by more than $1 billion and now makes up about a quarter of our total trade deficit in 2007? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Much of our oil comes through Singapore and that is a large contributor to the trade deficit with Singapore. Once you have a free-trade agreement some trade gets routed through those countries that may be part of that free-trade agreement. What we anticipate is that there will be a much more significant expansion of New Zealand exports to China than Chinese exports to New Zealand against the base case of maintaining current tariff levels. We should remember that most of the tariffs on current imports from China are due to be largely phased out in any case irrespective of the Chinese free-trade agreement. 
Keith Locke 
: Is it not true that the memorandum of understanding on labour issues is even weaker than that attached to the previous New Zealand - Thailand free-trade agreement—and who would have thought that that was possible—and that the new memorandum does nothing to stop Chinese manufacturers from sending us goods produced by forced prison labour child labour or pitifully paid sweatshop labour? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: To have any kind of agreement on labour standards with China is a major breakthrough in terms of free-trade agreements and demonstrates the value of continuing to maintain engagement. I find it very strange that a party that likes to claim to be internationalist on some matters believes that the best way of dealing with the world’s emerging most important power in economic terms is to try to isolate ourselves from it. 
Sue Bradford 
: What impact is the extension of commitments in the area of construction in the agreement with China likely to have on the ability of New Zealand firms to participate in rebuilding and maintaining our own infrastructure here? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not anticipate it to have any large impact in that regard. Indeed there will of course be impacts in reverse in terms of the ability of New Zealand firms to participate in construction in China. The real underlying issue here is whether New Zealand wants to become a high-value-added high-quality economy in which case we are not trying to compete with what China is doing. We are trying to compete in different parts of the market. One of the reasons why New Zealand can be the first developed country to have a free-trade agreement with China is that there is a large level of complementarity rather than competition between the two economies. 
Question No. 4 to Minister 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In relation to the last question that I asked I ask whether the Minister wants to clarify her answer because it would be of interest to the House. The material she waved around is from National’s 2005 policy archive. She seems to be seriously suggesting to the House and to all parties that any material from past elections—in this case 3 years old—will have to be authorised according to the current law. Could she firstly explain where the material actually came from so that everyone knows the truth instead of what she made up; and secondly whether we will all be bound by that opinion? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Does the Minister wish to comment? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 First of all I take exception to the member claiming that I made it up. I ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has asked. Please withdraw and apologise. Offence has been taken at the allegation of not telling the truth. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I received the material today from a member of the public who went on to the National Party website wanting to know what its party policy was on communication broadcasting and roading. This material is what came up for the member of the public. On the material it says: “Party Vote National”. I think it should be sent to the Electoral Commission to see whether it complies with the law. 
Energy Supply—Thermal Generation 
6.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Does he stand by his statement made when launching the New Zealand Energy Strategy on 11 October last year that “The government does not believe it is in the interests of the country for the SOEs to build any more base-load thermal generation.”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Yes I do because the Labour-led Government has a vision for a sustainable New Zealand which means having more renewable electricity rather than more fossil-fuelled electricity. The Government is unlike the National Party which does not even have a policy on energy and has members who are saying all sorts of contradictory things because they do not want to be pinned down on what they really stand for. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why then is the Government allowing Genesis Energy to progress a proposal to build a 240 to 400 megawatt gas-fired plant at Rodney—a plant that will be the biggest new project since the Huntly station itself—if it is not for the fact that the Government has a very contradictory policy when it comes to energy security particularly on the thermal ban and the idea of electricity generation being 90 percent renewable? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As has been reported in the  
Dominion Post 
 just on Monday Genesis has already confirmed that it will of course comply with the Government’s legislation and would not put any proposal to shareholding Ministers unless the project complied with it. I think it is more interesting that last week Gerry Brownlee was in Australia looking at coal and carbon capture and storage trials. You know I have never seen Mr Brownlee at the launch of any renewable electricity or energy proposal—not one of the many projects—that we have seen in New Zealand. But there he was flying to Australia to pursue his love affair with coal which he says he thinks is “sexy”. I am asking why National does not come clean and admit that when it finally releases its energy policy it will be about favouring coal and fossil fuels and putting renewables back. 
Hon Member 
: Is that a short answer? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes that answer was too long. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why is the Government allowing Genesis to advance proposals to build a 240 to 480 megawatt gas-fired plant at Rodney at the same time as telling New Zealanders that the Government has a ban on thermal plants and that we are moving to 90 percent renewable generation? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: We are moving to 90 percent renewables— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No we’re not; we’re going the other way! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No we are not; 175 megawatts of additional renewable capacity is required each year to achieve it and 300 megawatts is being built this year. We have always made it clear that there will be a need for some more peaking plants and perhaps the Rodney proposal may be one that is needed. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Is New Zealand in step with other OECD countries in aiming to increase its proportion of renewable electricity from around 70 percent to 90 percent of the total amount by 2025? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes we are. I am advised that Scotland’s target is to go from 16 percent to 50 percent of renewable electricity by 2020 Spain’s target is to go from 19 percent to 29 percent by 2010 Austria’s target is to go from 62 percent to 78 percent and Australia’s target is to go from 8 percent to 20 percent by 2020. Those are just a few of the dozens of targets around the world. Our target is in step with the targets of other countries but we are lucky to be starting from a higher base than those countries. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Was the Minister aware of the Genesis proposal when he told the Wind Energy Association conference this morning that it would take only one or two gas-fired plants to be built at the moment to make the 90 percent renewables target unattainable in the future; if so will he be asking Genesis Energy to back off from the Rodney proposal? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: What I said to the wind conference this morning which I have said on a number of occasions before is that if one or two large gas-fired baseload generation facilities were built then that would close out renewables. That does seem to be National’s ambition. At this fork in the road we can go down the road to renewables or we can go down the road towards using more fossil fuel. The Government is pursuing a target of 90 percent coming from renewable sources. To achieve that it is necessary to have restrictions on additional baseload fossil-fuelled generation. That is what we have and that is what National opposes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that under this Government’s watch 75 percent of the new electricity generation built has been thermal that the percentage of renewable electricity generation has plummeted to only 66 percent of total capacity and that given this sorry record the public should not be particularly surprised that the trend is continuing despite the Government’s rhetoric about a 90 percent renewables target? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Again the National member shows his confusion. There is a difference between capacity and output. Our target is for 90 percent of electricity to come from renewable sources by 2025. We are on our way towards that; National opposes it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I have a document in front of me that shows that the figures I just used are for output. The Minister may be interested to know that. I seek leave to table the document. 
Document not tabled. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare tae ra ano ki nga whanaunga o Hamoa—talofa lava. He aha ta te Kawanatanga hei tautoko i nga kamupene pera i a Tuaropaki kei te hoko kei te huri hiko mai i nga ngawha i Mokai? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Gr 
eetings to you Madam Speaker and to those of us in the House including relatives from Samoa—talofa lava. What will the Government do to support companies like the Tuaropaki power company which generates and markets electricity from the Mokai geothermal field? 
] 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: A number of Maori organisations are partnering with State-owned enterprises to bring forward geothermal electricity generation proposals. That has been of benefit to both those Maori organisations and the country. We are very lucky to have our wonderful geothermal resource which is already affordable which provides substantial baseload and which operates at higher average load factors throughout a year than any other source of generation including gas or coal. 
Question No. 4 to Minister 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister of Justice would like a further opportunity to correct an answer. She told the House that only one copy of the  
We’re Making a Difference to Everyone  
pamphlet had been distributed. We have reports from a member of the public—just one at the moment—who said the pamphlets were on display many of them in Damien O’Connor’s office last week and that the person had picked up five of them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Does the Minister wish to make any comment? There is no comment. 
Free-trade Agreement New Zealand - China—Benefits 
7.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: What are the benefits to New Zealand of the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Acting Minister of Trade) 
: 
 The New Zealand - China free-trade agreement signed in Beijing yesterday will result in a net benefit to New Zealanders of between $225 million and $350 million per annum for each of the next 20 years. The benefits fall in three main areas of the economy. In terms of trade and goods the free-trade agreement will result in an annual tariff saving to our exporters of $115.5 million based on current trade. In the area of trade and services the free-trade agreement gives New Zealand service suppliers an ability to operate in China generally on the same basis as domestic suppliers. In terms of investment New Zealand investments in China will get the same treatment and protection that Chinese nationals investing in China get. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What response to the free-trade agreement has the Minister seen from industry producer and union groups? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have seen statements welcoming the significant benefits that the free-trade agreement will provide to New Zealand for many groups including Federated Farmers Meat and Wool New Zealand Export New Zealand the Employers and Manufacturers Association and Business New Zealand. These organisations have all pointed to the benefits of securing preferential access to New Zealand’s fourth-largest export market. I have also seen comments from Peter Conway the economist with the Council of Trade Unions. He has said that the phase-down period for the remaining New Zealand tariffs was over a reasonable time period the labour memorandum gave a channel for unions to raise labour right issues and there were caps and controls in the case of temporary migration under the agreement. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What examples can the Minister provide of how specific sectors of the economy will benefit? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There are many. but some of the more significant ones are that dairy has an export value of $363 million and amounts to 18 percent of New Zealand’s total exports to China and tariffs on dairy products will be phased out over a period of between 5 and 12 years; fish and other seafoods which have an export value of $90 million and amount to 4 percent of our total exports to China will be eliminated over 5 years; tariffs on wine for example are currently 14 to 30 percent and will be phased out over 5 years; and the tariff on ice cream currently 19 percent will be phased out over 5 years. 
Public Health Bill—Risk Factors 
8.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is food a “risk factor” for non-communicable diseases such as obesity which could be restricted by regulations made under clause 374(x) of the Public Health Bill? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes—obviously it is difficult to be obese without eating food. However the Government has no plans to regulate food at this time. At the same time the current Act has been in place since 1956; it would not be responsible to undertake a once-in-a-generation rewrite without appropriately future-proofing the bill. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why is the nanny State Labour Government seeking such wide powers that would even allow the Government to halt at the border any foods the “food police” object to? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I can do no better than to quote the  
Herald on Sunday 
 which 
said that the Opposition’s position on this bill will have to do a lot better than making it up and dispensing “smart one-liners”. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If the Government has no plans at this time to regulate food why is it proposing wide regulation powers that would enable the nanny State to ban all food and alcohol sponsorship of sports teams to tell all restaurants what food they can serve and to ban fish and chips after 8 p.m. at night—yet more typical nanny State Labour interference in the lives of New Zealanders? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Again to quote the  
Herald on Sunday 
: “the bill provides for voluntary codes and even allows that non-voluntary codes would for the first 3 years be non-binding. It is hard to think of a less hard-line approach to a crisis. For a crisis it is.” Forty percent of Pasifika people in South Auckland are obese. What policy does National have to solve the obesity epidemic? 
Jo Goodhew 
: Why does the Government want regulation-making powers that could make it compulsory for every school in the country to stop kids from bringing a birthday cake to school because the nanny State’s “food police” object? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: She flogged Gerry Brownlee’s afternoon tea. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Bummer! The logical flaw in the Opposition argument is that that birthday cake incident is in the past tense. The bill is in the future tense and that incident therefore could not have relied upon the bill to have occurred. In other words it is a sad waste of Gerry Brownlee’s lunch. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why then is the Government proposing such broad unfettered regulation-making powers which would allow it to ban birthday cakes in every school but could also require a picture of fat bellies or gangrenous toes on every packet of potato chips—because that is exactly the powers that this Minister and this nanny-State Government want to give to themselves in the Public Health Bill? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: When I look at the member opposite I have no worries at all that the Government is going to be returned. He stands under his personal dark cloud while 60 percent of the Counties-Manukau population are at risk of having type 2 diabetes. National is bereft of policy except for putting up general practitioners’ fees. 
Minimum Wage—Changes 
9.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What changes to the minimum wage took effect on 1 April 2008? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 The adult minimum wage rose from $11.25 an hour to $12 an hour on 1 April. As well as that the youth minimum rate of $9 an hour for employees aged 16 and 17 ceased from 1 April and was replaced by a new entrants minimum hourly rate of $9.60 or 80 percent of the adult minimum wage. The new entrants rate can be paid to 16 and 17-year-olds for the first 200 hours or 3 months of employment and then the adult minimum wage applies. This is the ninth increase in the minimum wage that the Labour-led Government has delivered with a total increase of $5 for adults since we came into office in 1999 and of $7.80 for 16 and 17-year-olds with the requisite experience. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister seen other reports on wages and labour relations in general? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. I have seen reports showing that between 1990 and 1999 under a National Government in real terms the wage gap between Australia and New Zealand grew from 19 percent to 28 percent an increase of 50 percent. The same report shows that between 1999 and 2007 under a Labour Government in real terms the wage gap between Australia and New Zealand did not widen. The report also shows that the National Party has opposed every opportunity to support real wage growth to workers. Apart from opposing every increase to the minimum wage National opposed the Employment Relations Act and the Holidays Act. After first opposing paid parental leave it looks as if National has flip-flopped but who really knows? 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What other reports has the Minister seen on the issue of wages? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have seen a slippery report from Mr Key—and this is amazing from someone who cannot do an hour’s work at a time in this House—saying: “We would love to see wages drop.” I have seen subsequent reports trying to explain away the comment as being light-hearted. Then he tried to say he was talking about Australian wages. Then he tried to say that it did not count because he said it in a café. Then he said that he had not finished his thought. When none of those efforts worked efforts were made to bully the editor into sacking the reporter. Subsequently a clarification was forced but everyone who read it knew that John Key had said it— 
Hon Bill English 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is quite right. Would the Minister please succinctly address the question and not give a political speech. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: More than that I am advised that at every opportunity the National Party has— 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is as I think we all know some acceptable standards about the length of answers. I felt you were very tolerant towards the member. When you pulled him up he then continued with a further element of his speech. We cannot all answer questions at that length or start asking them at that length. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the member should have said “slippery” and left it at that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I am not sure that that is a point of order. We had this discussion in the House about the length of questions and answers. For a short period I think members were trying. That answer was far too long; the member is finished. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that answer and noting that the Minister is a relatively new Minister of Labour will he confirm that the $12 minimum wage was put in the confidence and supply agreement by New Zealand First; and will he give us the response he gave to me when I advised him on behalf of New Zealand First that we would be striving very very hard to ensure that the minimum wage will go up regularly every year from now on? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I can confirm that best endeavours were made to do that—not an absolute guarantee but best endeavours was part of that confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First. I am glad that the member is saying that he wants to be returned to Parliament and to have a similar arrangement in the future because there is only one party that will do it with him. 
Biofuels—Sustainable Sources 
10.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Does he believe New Zealanders may have to accept initial volumes of biofuels from unsustainable sources as reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on 3 April 2008 under the headline “Parker pushes biofuel agenda”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Like the Greens I believe we can avoid importing unsustainable biofuels. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why on earth is his Government so insistent on introducing biofuels this year before any sustainable standards are in place when the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has said that imported biofuels will put New Zealand’s clean green image at risk and that his bill should be dropped and when the United Kingdom House of Commons audit committee has called for a moratorium on biofuels until there are rules on their environmental integrity? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Existing biofuels produced and used in New Zealand are from sustainable sources. The member Dr Nick Smith has indeed noted that there are additional sources of biofuels like tallow that can also be brought forward for use sustainably. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is of course right to be concerned about sustainability issues. The bill already includes provisions around that and as I have previously said we are happy for the committee to tighten these provisions. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Can the Minister share with the House the support he has seen for the Biofuel Bill to proceed? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I have seen reports that sustainable tallow to bio-diesel producers will be unable to proceed with their multimillion-dollar production plants without a mandatory sales obligation. A number of these are pleading for the bill to go ahead and they assure the select committee that biofuels can be produced sustainably and in volume in New Zealand. Yet again we are seeing National wavering in its support showing once again that it is all talk and just wants delay. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How was it that the Prime Minister could cite “sustainability” 38 times when opening Parliament last year and the Government plasters all over billboards and publications the Government slogan “Everyone can have sustainability” but its officials cannot define what it actually means until 2011? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Despite Dr Smith’s pretence at being blue-green here we have National again being consistent opposing every meaningful step the Government takes on sustainability— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would be very happy to answer Labour’s questions about the Bluegreens and our vision for New Zealand but my question was about the definition of “sustainability” and the advice from the Minister’s officials that they cannot define what it means until 2011 despite the fact that the Government has repeated the phrase over and over again. I think that the Minister should address the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just think that the member should enable the Minister to finish his answer. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The member’s question related to sustainability. We have the member criticising us for taking insufficient amounts of electricity from renewable sources while Mr Brownlee calls for more coal. Just last week we had Dr Smith saying to the  
New Zealand Herald  
that the emissions trading scheme should be delayed—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Those Ministers have responsibility for Government policy. They do not—thankfully—have responsibility for the National Party. Every time they get a difficult question they recite all sorts of misinformation about National and they do not address the question. I simply ask you Madam Speaker to ask the Minister to address the question of how the Government can recite all this sustainability rhetoric when its officials say that they cannot define what it means until 2011. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand the point. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Now that we have settled that issue there was an interjection from Mr Brownlee which I am sure you heard and for which he should apologise and withdraw. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. Would the member please withdraw and apologise. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Mr Parker should expect that sort of comment across the House when he makes misleading statements. I have never called for an increase in the use of coal. This is some little piece of special thinking of his own which as many other people in the industry have noted he is prone to. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The member makes quite a serious statement when he says “you should expect” certain statements to be made when debating matter is introduced into the House. It is not for any member to take unto himself or herself the right to try to bully this House or to break the Standing Orders because that member does not like the nature of what is being said. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If I used the term “you” then I sincerely apologise. I meant that Mr Parker should expect it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. The point is however that members know that there is a certain way in which to address issues in this House. Matters are debatable in the House. Frequently statements are made about policies or people that are not agreed with. There are ways of responding to that and that way is consistent with the Standing Orders. So I would ask all members to do that in the future. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: My answer was interrupted. Last week we had Dr Smith saying to the  
New Zealand Herald  
that the emissions trading scheme should be delayed. Now he wants delays— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question that the Hon David Parker is required to answer is quite simple: why can his officials not give a definition for what “sustainable” means in terms of biofuels until 2011? Whatever we might have said over a range of issues will of course be of great interest to the public but it is of no relevance to the answer to this question. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The question started by quoting the Prime Minister’s record on sustainability in referencing sustainability. I am also doing that and contrasting it with the position taken by National which says one thing and then does another. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please address the question. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: After having called for a delay in the emissions trading scheme he now wants delays in biofuels. It is obvious that National is deeply divided on these issues. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question is not about the emissions trading system and it is not about National Party policy. It is actually about Government policy. The simple question is: when the Government has given all this advertising and air time to sustainability why cannot his officials define what it means in respect of biofuels until 2011? The Minister has had five goes at addressing the question. Every single time he has attempted to answer it he has started by bagging the National Party for which he is not responsible. I simply ask and you should ask that he address the question of Government policy for which he has responsibility. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: There is a habit developing from the National Party that when I have the temerity to contrast its members’ rhetoric with their action they break up my answers. These are the notes I was speaking from. They are not unduly long. I was quoting from a  
New Zealand Herald  
article they quoted from a  
New Zealand Herald  
article in the primary question and I see nothing out of order in my answer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How can the Minister claim to have prepared notes for a supplementary question? If in fact he does and they are so clever and so succinct why does he not just table them and sit down? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That just shows how lacking in experience the front bench of the National Party is. Ministers prepare for question time and it is usually not hard to guess what kinds of supplementary questions members opposite will ask because they lack any imagination and therefore Ministers prepare their answers to those prepared supplementary questions usually typed out for the Opposition by their research unit. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister address the question. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: National is obviously deeply divided on these issues and despite Dr Smith’s rhetoric— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister is not responsible for what National’s view might be. What is disturbing in his prepared answers is that it seems that question time has now deteriorated to the point where regardless of what the supplementary question is the Government is going to recite some sort of damning of National policy rather than the Minister doing Parliament’s proper job of answering in terms of his ministerial responsibility. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker I think if you took the trouble to go through the  
Hansard 
 you would find that on more occasions than infrequently this member of Parliament always challenges by way of a point of order the answers coming from Ministers. He does it all the darn time as though he is somebody special and someone who has a special licence in this House to carry on in that way. [ 
Interruption 
] He is right about the humbug because that is what he engages in. He cannot take it. The Minister spoke only four words the last time and the member was on his feet taking a point of order. I say “If you can’t take it sunshine find a new job.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. I just remind members that the Minister is to address the question. The Speaker is not responsible for the answer. The Standing Orders ask for that. Normally however it would be useful if the Minister could finish his answer. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I will conclude by saying that New Zealand should start and is starting the transition to sustainable transport fuels. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Has not his biofuels policy damned by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and by his own admission that it is going to result in the importing of unsustainable biofuels joined the long list of embarrassing climate change policy failures of the billion-dollar Kyoto bungle the “fart tax” fiasco the carbon tax debacle the solar water heating flop the deforestation disaster and its thermal electricity ban being overturned by its own State-owned enterprise? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Not at all. In the last week of course we have had a release from Biodiesel New Zealand saying it can meet all of New Zealand’s bio-diesel requirements by the end of the year with a product that is sustainably sourced from tallow. National is I repeat obviously divided on these issues. Despite Dr Nick Smith’s rhetoric the senior fossils on his front bench like Mr Williamson and Dr Lockwood Smith are in the ascendancy and blue-green is increasingly black and slippery. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I realise you are working your way through the interests that various parties have in getting particular positions over question time but I point you to Speakers’ rulings 139/3 and 139/6. I do not think Mr Parker’s answers have met those requirements at all this afternoon. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. I thought the member was going to raise what I think is a legitimate point of order which is that the Minister is not responsible for National Party policy and I just remind members of that. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I do not think I have ever done this before but I seek leave for an additional supplementary question—we have used up our allocation—because I think there is an issue at the essence of this argument that is being disguised by what is happening and I would like to try to clarify it with one additional supplementary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon called last month for a halt on the rush to biofuels the British Government’s chief scientific adviser says that biofuels are threatening the lives of billions of people the G8 last month called for strict biofuel standards the European Union has admitted its biofuel policy has caused serious environmental problems and the German environment Minister only last week stopped plans to require additional biofuels so why on earth is this Government insisting on proceeding with a policy before standards for sustainability are in place and when by his own admission the policy is going to result in the importation of unsustainable biofuels? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Before the Minister answers I must say that that was an example of a very long question. If members have long questions they are likely to get long answers. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is because the mandatory sales obligation far from being as extreme as the member proposes is for a modest 0.5 percent of transport fuel in the first year. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the House of Commons’ environmental audit report on the difficulties and the call for a moratorium on biofuels in the United Kingdom. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the statement by the Secretary-General of the United Nations calling for a comprehensive halt on the implementation of biofuels as a consequence of the global crisis in food prices. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have just seen a member of Parliament take almost 30 minutes mucking around with the House and raising numerous points of order and before the question is even answered for the satisfaction of all the House—because there is a colleague here who wants to ask a question—that member rises to his feet in his inimitable arrogant way and seeks to table all the documents. That is a disgraceful set of proceedings and he should be brought to heel by his leader rather than behaving like the clown he is. Only he gets away with it and I would like you to tell me why that is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will admit that this has been an interesting start to the week with lots of points of order which have come back into fashion and most of which are not points of order. However we will persevere. Are there any more questions? There are. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister have any concerns at all about the principle of growing crops to fuel motor vehicles knowing that it will increase the price of food and that a significant proportion of the people of this world are starving? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I do. That is one of the things that should be addressed in sustainability criteria. I point out that the existing biofuels being produced in New Zealand do not have that effect; tallow to bio-diesel would not have that effect and neither does sugar cane to ethanol from Brazil. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Minister been informed by anybody on the select committee of whether his officials informed the committee that they could not define sustainability before 2011 or did they say that that was the year when they expected the international standard to be ready and does he agree with the Green Party that a New Zealand sustainability standard could actually be ready in a few months? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I agree with both of those propositions. I note that it is actually Green members who have been at the forefront of their wish to see sustainability standards developed and applied for New Zealand. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the advice from the Ministry of Economic Development saying that sustainability standards for biofuels could not be developed until 1 January 2011. 
Document not tabled. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Despite the last point of order raised by New Zealand First that member got up and did it again. There is a member of the Maori Party who is seeking to ask a question and without any regard for him that member gets up and raises another point of order to seek leave. He knows the convention here that when the questions are finished a member can seek leave to table—not beforehand. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I quite agree and I have noted this before. It is a convention but not more than a convention that leave is sought at the end of the time when the supplementary questions are over. But it is only a convention. Members are perfectly entitled to do what they like in this House—and normally they do—as long as it is more or less within the Standing Orders. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether it would be worth your while pointing out to the Rt Hon Winston Peters that it also once used to be a convention for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to agree with Government policy. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. That is a classic example of what is not a point of order. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena ano koe Madam Speaker. Ki te Minita he aha ta te Kawanatanga hei tautoko i nga kamupene penehini ki te hanga kaupapa kia taea ai e ratou te toha whanui nga paraumu hinu a nga ra e heke iho nei? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings once again to you Madam Speaker. To the Minister what is the Government doing to support fuel companies establish a distribution infrastructure necessary to enable widespread use of biofuels in the future? 
] 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: A very good question. One of the purposes of the mandatory biofuels obligation is to encourage oil companies to develop the infrastructure that is needed to deliver biofuels in the future. These percentages start low and in later years grow higher as these industries come on. 
Refugee Determination Processes—Confidence 
11.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Immigration 
: Does he have confidence in the Government’s refugee determination processes and whether the answer be positive or negative why? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Immigration 
: Yes because the Refugee Status Appeals Authority is independent of Ministers politicians and officials and its processes are well-documented proven and internationally respected. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in its presentation to the select committee on the immigration bill recommended that “the experience and high quality of expertise of refugee status determination currently located in the Refugee Status Appeals Authority be preserved in the context of any appellant structures and procedures …”. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Minister reconcile that answer when the issue of the determination of processes concerns those who have been told they cannot stay here and who then go missing like Bahareh Moradi a person who came here from Iran using all sorts of fictitious passports via her brother who himself smuggled three people into this country all of whom gave false reasons for being here; and it having been determined by the appeals authority and the High Court that her case is not valid why is she still in New Zealand? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Because she absconded and is currently being located with a view to removing her. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is this the same person whose brother claimed on her behalf that she would be prejudiced by his actions and that he himself was being prejudiced by his beliefs when in fact he is also recorded as visiting Korea 12 times between September 2002 and September 2005 and taking direct flights to Iran on five occasions between September 2003 and September 2005; how does that epitomise a man or family being persecuted? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is Ms Moradi whom I assume the member refers to. I preface my comments by saying that as the member would know himself it would be inappropriate to make specific and detailed comments about an individual case. But as we know publicly our procedures are as follows. This case has been to the Refugee Status Board and declined; to the Refugee Status Appeal Authority and declined; to the High Court seeking a judicial review; to the High Court seeking an interim order and declined; and as an appeal to the Associate Minister my colleague which he declined to intervene on. The person absconded and conditions were placed on her by the court. The person absconded and is currently in the process of being located to be removed from the country. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How is she still here—or for that matter how are her brothers still here—given that this family is quoted in the court document as weaving “an elaborate and meticulously crafted web of lies”; and which member of Parliament thought it proper despite this family’s absolutely specious case to petition this Parliament for us to take up her case? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am advised that the family members to whom the member refers were accepted as genuine refugees. I say to the member that all cases—he would know this; he has represented cases himself as have all members of Parliament—are individual often different and dealt with on their merits. As to the second part of the member’s question I say that all members are free to make representations and support migrants to retain their status. As to the point of judgment I say that that has to be a matter for the member. It is always interesting to note that generally there is far more to cases than is often represented to individual members of Parliament. But it remains the judgment of a member of Parliament as to whether they choose to back an individual. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know all that. I want to know which member of Parliament thought that this case was appropriate to make representations on and even petition to Parliament. It is a very specific question. There are 121 options. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I have no responsibility for actions of individual members of Parliament. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It was Jonathan Coleman. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that the member there does not have an electorate and does not have constituents but he will know that it is a convention that when members of Parliament are approached with a petition presented by a constituent they present that petition to Parliament. That would be the duty of a member of Parliament and that is what has taken place. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the point is taken. 
Housing New Zealand Corporation—Referrals 
12.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Does the Housing New Zealand Corporation keep accurate referral records sufficient to allow her to categorically rule out corporation referrals to the “squalid” Kotoku (Kiwiana) and Abiru boarding houses in Mangere; if not why not? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I am advised that the Housing New Zealand Corporation does not keep referral records. I have been further advised by the corporation that the Mangere neighbourhood unit has a referral practice and those two lodges are not on its referral list. 
Phil Heatley 
: How then can the Minister stand by her adamant statement last week that the corporation does not and did not refer clients to those lodges given that the corporation does not keep accurate records on referrals to private accommodation? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Because I have asked the corporation. The corporation has undertaken an investigation. The results of that investigation give me confidence that the advice I was given last week applies today. 
Phil Heatley 
: So is the Minister saying categorically that the Housing New Zealand Corporation has not referred people to those squalid boarding houses in the last 6 months based on corporation advice even though the corporation said to the  
Listener 
 that it is impossible to know who has been referred and where such people have been sent that no records are kept and that it cannot guarantee that staff do not send clients there; which advice from the corporation should we believe? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Last week a number of actions were undertaken to ensure that the practice of the neighbourhood unit of not referring people to those two lodges was in fact the case—that staff members were not acting outside of the established practice and referring people to those lodges even though they should not be doing that. Last week I encouraged that member to get out and do some legwork around this issue. If he had been to the lodges and asked the managers about this matter he might have received the same answers that on investigation the Housing New Zealand Corporation got. 
Phil Heatley 
: I wish to make a personal statement about my visiting the boarding lodges that the Minister refers to. I have visited the boarding houses and they are squalid. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
Phil Heatley 
: Is the Minister concerned about the growing group who are disputing her unequivocal statements about referrals—the  
Listener 
  
Close Up 
 three social workers and the tenants themselves—and if she is concerned about their disputing what she has been saying why is she not listening to them and improving the situation? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I have to say that  
Close Up 
 and the  
Listener 
 are working off the same information so it is a bit of a complete circle there. I further say that the point is that in fact the  
Close Up 
 programme was simply working off the  
Listener  
article; the programme had not done any homework either. I say to the member that the investigation has been carried out. Corporation staff visited the lodges in person and spoke with the lodge managers to verify details such as those raised in the  
Listener 
 article and by the  
Close Up 
 programme and to endeavour to find any evidence of such activity. They confirmed that they could not find any evidence to support it. If the member has any evidence I ask him to please give it to me so that I can have a look at it. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table a statement from the Monte Cecilia Housing Trust that “Housing NZ has arrived at the boarding houses with new tenants.” 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table a statement from the  
Listener 
 that “Many were brought here by Housing New Zealand.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the statement made by a  
Close Up 
 researcher and reporter that “They’ve been advised to go there by Housing New Zealand.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the statement made by the Housing New Zealand Corporation that “no records are kept …”. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the statement made by John Key that “There is a growing underclass in New Zealand.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Questions to Members 
1. Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill—Submitters 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: How much notice was given to submitters on the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill that they were scheduled to appear before the committee in Christchurch on Monday 7 April 2008? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): 
 Following a refusal by the National Party to agree to commit to alternative dates last week I called a meeting on 7 April to hear Christchurch submissions. Submitters were notified of that meeting on the previous Thursday. 
Hon David Carter 
: Does the member think it is appropriate to give Holcim (New Zealand) Ltd a company that is considering investing half a billion dollars in this country only 2 working days’ notice to appear before that select committee? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I am advised that Holcim (New Zealand) Ltd was consulted about the timing of its submission and was content to appear at that time. Moreover it was given 30 minutes for its submission and questions and answers on it which is quite a lot longer than the normal time allotted to a submissioner.