Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8025] 
Questions to Ministers 
Solomon Islands—Military Deployment 
1. LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (NZ Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: Why have a further 125 New Zealand military personnel been sent to the Solomon Islands and how long will they be deployed? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 The New Zealand infantry company on stand-by will be deployed to the Solomon Islands at the end of this week probably for a period of up to 3 months. The deployment is to support police-led operations about to commence aimed at securing illegal weapons not handed in as a result of the recent amnesty. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: How many weapons are still thought to be at large and what will the actual role of the military personnel be? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The numbers are improving all the time. At the end of last week some 2700 weapons had been handed in including 550 high-powered weapons. As of last evening that number had increased by 655 so 3355 weapons have been handed in—of those 628 are high-powered. Our estimate is that probably just over 300 high-powered or military weapons are still out in the community. The police will act under search warrant to secure those weapons with the military in the background as an escort to ensure deterrence against violent resistance and as a quick-reaction force if that is required. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: When the Minister indicated on his visit to Australia in June this year that New Zealand could deploy between 100 and 200 armed forces personnel why did the Government initially send 105 support and logistics people but only now decide to send 125 infantry combat soldiers; has the situation deteriorated so that they need that capability or did he receive a phone call from Mr Downer? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: When we announced on 14 July that we would be sending a deployment to the Solomon Islands we announced that those who were needed immediately would go immediately. That included the helicopters the support personnel the headquarters staff an engineering element and a medical civil and humanitarian group. We said that the infantry would be on 7-day stand-by until it was needed. At the end of the amnesty as I mentioned in my initial answer we are now spreading out across the whole of the Solomon Islands. There is now an actual need for the infantry company and the company will be sent as indicated previously when it is needed. 
Keith Locke 
: How will the security provided by the New Zealand military personnel assist tribal leaders in advancing community peace-building projects and grass-roots development and how will New Zealand assist in advancing such projects? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The key role of the military will be to back up the police-led deployment and the key first task is to bring in the weapons. Until the weapons are secured the prospects of going on to start the process of rebuilding the Solomon Islands economically and socially cannot be done. Part of the deployment however will involve working directly on civil and humanitarian projects and the New Zealanders in those sorts of deployments have a very good reputation for working alongside local people to achieve those ends. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Is the Minister really suggesting that the situation in the Solomons now is potentially more dangerous and thus needs 125 combat soldiers now than it was at the initial deployment? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No the member should listen. The reason the people are going up there is that we have moved from phase 1 which did not require the people on the ground because it was a voluntary weapons hand-in to stage 2 where the police are now being based in six different areas of the Solomons Islands and require that sort of military back-up. The level of danger is no higher today than it was 5 weeks ago but obviously when people go in to secure weapons from people who have not voluntarily given them up we need the military back-up behind the police. 
Compliance Costs—Reduction 
2.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister for Small Business 
: As the Business NZ - KPMG Compliance Cost Survey reveals only three of the 760 New Zealand businesses surveyed say that compliance costs have not increased under this Government and identifies health and safety tax employment relations and ACC as having the largest increase in compliance costs and given the Government has legislated in each of these areas what if anything will it do to reverse this trend of increasing compliance costs for business? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Small Business) 
: 
 Firstly I would like to thank Business New Zealand for providing some significant information in helping this Government on the way through compliance cost issues. Secondly if the member had read the report a little more carefully he would have seen that in the vast majority of areas questioned—in fact 13 out of the 18—up to 80 percent of respondents actually said that compliance costs had either not changed or decreased. I welcome all feedback from business on compliance costs and also welcome people to read the document carefully. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Would the Minister care to clarify that if I read to him: “It is clear that recent changes to employment legislation particularly HSE has had a dramatic impact on reordering the issues of priority likely changes to the Holidays Act and the Employment Relations Act and possible moves on pay equity will only continue this trend”; given that what is this Minister doing about it? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I respectfully refer the member to table 22 on page 31 of the report. 
Mark Peck 
: What other steps have been taken by this Government to reduce compliance costs? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: As I have previously told this House this Government has shown great dedication to reducing compliance costs. For example we are implementing over 80 percent of the recommendations of the business compliance-cost panel which represents at least 95 percent of potential benefits for compliance-cost reduction. After a careful review of the last 12 years of Government in this country in the last 3 years under this Government we have achieved more in the tax simplification area with regard to debt and hardship provisions use-of-money interest provisions and adjustments to trading stock and have made business a lot better placed and easier to conduct in this country. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: When numerous surveys this year—including the  
Economic Freedom of the World: 2003 Annual Report 
 the National Bank small-business monitor the Auckland Chamber of Commerce red-tape register survey and now the Business NZ - KPMG Compliance Cost Survey—all tell of business compliance costs and regulatory creep being an increasing problem under this Government why does the Minister continue to deny that this Government has burdened the business community with more red tape and compliance costs? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: We have never denied that compliance and regulations are issues with business. There is no country in the world that does not have a compliance and regulatory regime. The 2003  
Index of Economic Freedom 
 published by the Heritage Foundation a right-wing organisation and the  
Wall Street Journal 
 describe New Zealand’s regulatory regime as relatively light and transparent and have commented that it is easy to establish a business in New Zealand. However more important the  
Index 
of Economic Freedom 
 ranked New Zealand third in the world a position that has improved since 1998. Australia one of our biggest trading partners ranked ninth. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister find it ironic that the Business NZ - KPMG survey indicates that the very employee stress that his Government tried to legislate out of existence has merely been transferred on to small-business employers thus inhibiting their productivity efficiency and business growth and who would he suggest that stressed employers now turn to? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I do not find it an irony at all. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How does the Minister reconcile his statements to the House today that the Government’s Employment Relations Act has not increased compliance costs with the fact that he voted against Margaret Wilson’s proposals which were recently taken to Cabinet to allow employers to take union fees off people who do not belong to the union; to change “unjustified dismissal” to “unfair dismissal”; and to introduce the provision whereby an employer who wins a tender has to take over the employees of the firm that lost? Why did he vote against all of that if he says that compliance costs are not a problem? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I do not know where the member gets his information from but as usual it is wrong wrong and wrong. 
Environment Minister—Confidence 
3.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister for the Environment following her reported statement “Um I don’t know” in response to the  
New Zealand Herald 
’s question “Are you happy to eat GM products?” 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: With reference to the Minister’s statement: “In this area we are into management of risk or limitation of risk” does she think that the 68 percent of New Zealanders who told the  
New Zealand Herald 
’s weekend poll that they wanted the moratorium continued will tolerate this approach of allowing the risks to increase? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government is putting in place one of the strongest regulatory regimes in the developed world. The Minister is absolutely correct to say that we are always involved in management of risk. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Prime Minister have the confidence in herself to appear before the select committee inquiry into genetically modified corn noting that she personally made phone calls to key scientists; her own department’s quite extensive involvement; that she said publicly during the election that there would be total openness by all those involved; and that she accused TV3 of ambushing her; or will Labour members on the select committee block the Prime Minister being able to appear before the committee? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that question is not related specifically to the question asked. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question we have before the House is about confidence. My question was about the Prime Minister having the confidence to front before a select committee and it is also about the safety of GM products. I have to say to you Mr Speaker that the central issue of the select committee inquiry is the very issue of public confidence and the safety of genetically modified products. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The original question was about the Prime Minister’s confidence in the Minister for the Environment. One cannot expand it beyond the Minister for the Environment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is perfectly correct and that is the advice I have received. The question must be related to the original question which was about the Minister for the Environment. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. While Dr Nick Smith was asking his question I noticed that Trevor Mallard and Dr Michael Cullen were having a conversation with you. I fear that they may have been suggesting to you that the question was out of order. That is not a proper process. If they believe that the question was out of order then the proper approach is not to whisper in the Speaker’s ear but rather to take a point of order and make that point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I thought they were doing that they would have been ordered from the Chamber. I listened to the remarks the Clerk made and I always take the advice of the Clerk. I had a difficulty in my own mind with that particular question and I have ruled accordingly. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to be able to ask the question because I think there is significant public interest in whether the Prime Minister will appear. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. While I accept the response you gave to Mr Hide none the less a number of us saw the mutterings from Dr Cullen and Mr Mallard and they do cause us concern. Further to that in situations where you have felt that the question strayed from the pure intent of the primary question rather than ruling it out you have quite often invited the questioner to rephrase his or her question so that it complies with the Standing Orders and meets the test you are obliged to apply on behalf of the House. I wonder whether this case might be a similar one. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I think that is a reasonable request. I will let Dr Smith have another go. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the answer from the Minister for the Environment when asked: “Are you happy to eat GM products?” which was “Um I don’t know” and is that Government policy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is always helpful when people give quotations in their full context. The Minister for the Environment actually said: “Um I don’t know I travel quite a lot. I probably have ingested it and not known it.” With her usual facility with words she went on to say: “ I tell you I’ve had a helluva lot more fears about some of the chemicals on our things.” 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: In relation to GM organisms in the human food chain why has the Government ignored the Business and Economic Research economic analysis of the risks and opportunities that could arise from genetically modified technologies that was contracted as part of the Government’s response to the royal commission report? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not think it is true that we have ignored those findings. We have followed a complete precautionary approach all the way through and have continued to do so. The point that has been made frequently of course is that it is almost certain that GM foods are already in the New Zealand food chain. 
Rodney Hide 
: In the light of the Prime Minister’s answer to the primary question on what date did the Prime Minister learn that her brother-in-law had advised the Minister for the Environment by email that: “In my opinion the genie is out and it will be impossible to adhere to the present zero NZ GM standard in the long term.” or is that another one of those communications about which the Government um does not know? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sure I can obtain an answer for the member but I do not have the information in front of me to answer a question so specific about that date. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the moratorium on GM is to end in just 7 weeks’ time why should New Zealanders have any confidence in the Government’s regulatory regime when the very best that the Minister responsible for that regime can say when asked: “Are you happy to eat GM products?” is “Um I don’t know” plus a lot of other confusion and does the Prime Minister believe that that is good enough? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think a number of members could sometimes learn to say “don’t know” when they do not know. The Minister was actually saying that she travelled a lot and did not know whether she had ingested GM products. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Is it true that on 9 April 2003 the Cabinet policy committee directed the Environmental Risk Management Authority to carry out further work on how it would assess economic impacts and that the implications of that policy were not to be reported until 31 October 2004; if so how can the Government be confident that the authority has the capacity for economic analysis of applications in the interim? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes but fundamentally it is not the authority’s primary role to make economic judgments. People make those judgments based on a number of considerations and it is up to the person investing in the product to make them not the authority. What I am getting fascinated by is a clear sign that two parties in this Parliament are doing U-turns on this policy. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the second to last answer the acting Prime Minister did not seem to know anything about the subject. All of a sudden he makes an allegation that two parties are making a U-turn on a very fair question which simply was: “Why are we going to have a clearance 1 year before an economic report is in from the Environmental Risk Management Authority?” Frankly he can say all of those things but he cannot make allegations about other parties’ policies. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He can make a comment but that comment might not necessarily be accepted by any other member of the House. It stands as that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Given that the Minister in charge of the Environmental Risk Management Authority does not know whether she is happy to eat GM products can the Prime Minister tell us whether she is happy to eat GM products? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think that the Prime Minister has eaten the Leader of the Opposition on a number of occasions in this House and he is some kind of GM product. [ 
Interruption 
] I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will have the answer now please. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: While I am— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. There will be no reference to the absence of any member in this House. That is a long-established rule. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was no reference to the Prime Minister’s whereabouts whatsoever. I just said: “Where is she?” She could be outside for all that members know. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that she is not in the Chamber as I do too and that is just playing with words. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am the Prime Minister’s deputy not her food-taster. I do not know what the Prime Minister’s taste in food is. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What is the Prime Minister’s response to major exporters Zespri ENZA Ltd Heinz-Wattie Ltd Sanitarium and to the many small food exporters that say that they have built a market reputation on GE-free foods and that releasing genetically engineered crops will damage their export earnings? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My reading of the evidence is that while there is some evidence to demonstrate that in particular crop areas genetically modified crops might have a lesser market because of fears there is no real evidence that that translates across into other exports of other products from the same country. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Are small fast-growing niche-marketing value-added export businesses like Lisa’s Healthy Foods now turning over $6 million a New Zealand free-range egg and poultry company getting twice the price of US eggs in the US and the Celtic Organic Winery consistent with the Government’s growth and innovation strategy; if so will the Government support their development and protect their market advantage? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There are countries that are successfully exporting genetically modified food non - genetically modified non-organic food and organic food simultaneously. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Public Domain 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that “the foreshore and seabed should be public domain” and does this mean her Government will move to extinguish indigenous title? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: The Government’s proposal is for the foreshore and seabed to be public domain. The Government’s proposals deliberately do not use the concept of ownership or the term “title”. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Court of Appeal correct when it states that Maori customary title must be extinguished before it can be regarded as ceasing to exist and if the court is correct will the Government move to extinguish indigenous title? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What the Government has stated is that the law the present Te Ture Whenua Maori Act will be changed so that the provision whereby one can move from the recognition of Maori customary rights to the granting of freehold title will be removed. 
Jill Pettis 
: What is the Government proposing to do to protect Maori customary interests in the future? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government proposed there should be processes to enable the customary interests of whanau hapu and iwi in the foreshore and seabed to be acknowledged and specific rights to be identified and protected. The Government is also proposing for a process to recognise ancestral connection between whanau hapu and iwi in particular areas of seabed and foreshore. 
Dail Jones 
: Is her use of the term “public domain” linked to the use of that term by the USA a federal republic to signify land owned and controlled by the State or Federal Government—what we in New Zealand a constitutional monarchy call Crown land and local body land; or is it linked to international copyright law which includes in the “public domain” icons such as Pinocchio Santa Claus and Huka Ma me nga whena e whitu—Snow White and her Seven Dwarfs? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Some parties go five better than that in my experience in this House. No the term “public domain” is actually used in New Zealand as well. Interestingly enough I find myself in agreement with the co-leader of the Green Party. The term that is used in England which has some historical relevance is the idea of the “commons”. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Given that both the Prime Minister’s and the Attorney-General’s initial response following the Court of Appeal decision was to assert Crown ownership and to legislate accordingly and that their position now is to legislate for non-ownership could the Prime Minister tell the House what is the practical difference between public domain and Crown ownership? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: One very important difference is that the language of ownership is clearly divisive in this context. If one wants to be divisive as one’s main purpose then continue to use the concept of “ownership” as the main consideration. 
Metiria Turei 
: Given the Government’s timetable for hui for Maori consultation on the foreshore issue what timetable of other public meetings has the Government organised to bring Pakeha and Maori New Zealanders together to explore options and potential resolution; if none why not given the damage to our community caused by the irresponsible racially divisive rhetoric being touted about by other politicians? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That member cannot use that phrase in relation to politicians in this House and she should be asked to withdraw and apologise and wash her mouth out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That last comment was unnecessary. The last part of the member’s question was unnecessary to complete the sense of the question and I ask the Minister to reply to the earlier part. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government certainly will be holding discussions and I know that many Government members are going to be holding discussions with a whole range of local groups in areas such as recreation environment access groups and so on. We will be discussing with whanau hapu and iwi via the hui process. I think in terms of legal decisions to be made around consultation in these sorts of areas we would be rather hard-pressed to explain why we are consulting everybody simultaneously. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: If “public domain” refers to land or space held on behalf of all New Zealanders who actually owns it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The essence of the Government’s decision is that we do not need to express the concept of ownership in this regard and surprisingly enough that appears to have the support of 58 percent of the public compared with 20 percent—which a number of parties are fighting over—who support Crown ownership. 
Hon Bill English 
: What action will the Government take in the light of the following statement made by New Zealand’s highest court—the Court of Appeal— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: No the Privy Council. 
Hon Bill English 
: —OK the second-highest court—“Maori customary title is no different from any other common-law interest which continues to exist unless and until it is lawfully abrogated.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We are going to remove the notion of moving to freehold title as part of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. The notion of title in itself is simply a statement of what one’s rights are. 
Dail Jones 
: If as the Prime Minister says no one will own the land would it then follow that no one can trespass on the land and therefore beach parties on the foreshore at say Mount Maunganui at New Year or on Takapuna beach or on Te Atatu beach will run rampant and uncontrolled because no one will be committing an offence because no one owns the land and therefore no one will be trespassing on it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The common misconception underlying that is that one has to own something in order to regulate it. Parliament is sovereign and under parliamentary authority regulation of almost anything can occur. There are two questions on today’s Order Paper complaining that this Government is regulating far too many things it does not own. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Is it still the Government’s intention to transfer the ownership of the foreshore and lake beds of 14 Rotorua lakes from the Crown to Maori; if so why is the ownership of the lake foreshores and lake beds different from the coastal foreshores and seabed? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Those are part of a treaty settlement. This is not a treaty issue; it is an issue arising out of common-law rights and the expression of customary rights and those need to be settled in a different way. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given the Court of Appeal’s view that indigenous title will continue to exist until it is lawfully abrogated can the Prime Minister confirm whether the Government intends to legislate in a way that will extinguish indigenous or customary title? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Court of Appeal uses a range of language but particularly uses the language of customary rights. It points out that customary rights are not extinguished unless explicitly so by means of legislation. Unlike the member opposite this Government is not proposing to limit that expression of customary rights. 
Rental Housing—Government Initiatives 
5.  
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What initiatives is the Government taking to promote stable tenancies? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I announced a package of measures to assist landlords and tenants at the New Zealand Property Investors Federation conference on Saturday. The package includes improved support for tenancy tribunal judgment creditors who are having difficulty locating a debtor more practical assistance for Work and Income clients who are at risk of losing a tenancy development of better access to tenancy tribunal public records and information seminars for landlords to spread best practice. It is a balanced package aimed at assisting both good tenants and good landlords. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What will be the benefits of those initiatives? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the benefits from the changes are clear: tenants will be less likely to lose their home through eviction and landlords will be less likely to miss out on recovering money that the tenancy tribunal has ordered a tenant to pay. Overall the relationship between tenants and landlords should be more balanced and enhanced by the measures that were announced on Saturday. 
Sue Bradford 
: What consultation if any did the Government undertake with tenants protection civil liberties and beneficiary advocacy groups in the development of the latest legislation on residential tenancies and will such groups have any further opportunity at all to have an input into those substantial changes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There was a good deal of consultation which is why a number of tenancy agencies came out in support of the changes over the weekend. They will continue to be involved in discussions. 
Marc Alexander 
: Will the ability for courts to use Government-held address information to trace tenancy tribunal order debtors be extended beyond the Ministry of Social Development to include departments like the Inland Revenue Department in recognition of the fact that not all recalcitrant tenants are beneficiaries? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes. We are ensuring that databases apart from the Ministry of Social Development can be used but not the Inland Revenue Department. 
Marc Alexander 
: In the light of the move to ensure that tenants are not evicted by covering their rent arrears through Work and Income is the Minister concerned that although this should ensure the landlord gets paid it does not make such tenants any more responsible for their actions when the taxpayer always picks up the tab; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: One of the problems we have is with bad landlords and bad tenants. There is a problem on both sides of the equation and the member can tell from my answers so far that this Government is determined to get a balanced relationship between both partners so that they can have a good stable tenancy. 
Gambling Bill—Council Powers 
6.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: What is his response to comments by Manukau Mayor Sir Barry Curtis about the Gambling Bill that “we asked for powers to be given to councils to control the number and location of gambling outlets in their area … But sadly this intention is not evident in the Gambling Bill … Unless the proposed legislation is changed we will not be given the tools needed to control the problem.”? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 The bill does give councils the power to develop polices controlling the number and location of gambling outlets in their district. Councils may veto all gaming-machine sites established after 17 October 2001. These powers extend to non-casino gaming machines in pubs and clubs. 
Sue Bradford 
: How can the Minister possibly say that the Gambling Bill gives communities control over gambling when the Manukau City Council will be able to exercise control over just 9 percent of all the pokies in the city; and does he approve of a situation in which no matter how much south Aucklanders want to greatly reduce the number of pokie machines in their community this bill and this Government will not let them? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Venues already licensed on 17 October 2001 do not have perpetual rights. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Does the research quoted by Sir Barry Curtis find similar problem-gambling representation rates to previous research? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yes. The Manukau City Council report refers to research that puts the rate of problem gambling at between 1.1 and 3.1 percent of the population. This is consistent with other research on the prevalence of problem gambling. 
Judith Collins 
: Is the Minister proud of the fact that during his time as Minister the number of pokie machines outside casinos has increased from 13812 to 25221? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: This Government is proud that it is doing something about the gambling problem that this country faces and I hope the member opposite will support the Government when the Committee stage of the bill comes up. 
Brent Catchpole 
: Given that the Minister has failed to provide local councils with the powers to control the number and locations of gambling outlets as they requested what confidence can communities have that the funds raised in their areas will not be siphoned off into a centralised fund distributed to organisations sympathetic to the Government? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I do not think the member should listen to rumours of other parties. We are not centralising the funds one little bit. I have told him that before. He ought to listen. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Minister concerned by the recent Manukau City social impact report which cites the proliferation of non-casino gaming machines as causing “neglect of children relationship break-up debt eviction and forced mortgagee sales”; and why will he not support amendments to the Gambling Bill giving Manukau City Council and all other councils the ability to control the explosion of problem gambling in our communities? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The bill does give councils the power to develop policies controlling the number and location of outlets in their districts. 
Refugees—Missing Asylum Seekers 
7.  
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Did she follow up on the claim that an asylum seeker had gone missing from an Auckland refugee hostel that there had been a cover-up by the New Zealand Immigration Service and the Refugee Council and that he had neither been found nor deported? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes I did. The individual concerned had not gone missing from the hostel because he was not staying at it. Therefore there was no cover-up by the Immigration Service or the Refugee Council. The police advised the Immigration Service that the individual concerned was arrested on 14 April 2003 and remanded in custody. During the remand period he was served with a removal order which was executed after he was convicted. He was removed on 5 August 2003. 
Helen Duncan 
: What advice can the Minister give to someone who is aware of circumstances that raise concerns about an individual’s immigration status? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: People should write to me as Minister or to the New Zealand Immigration Service so that the facts can be ascertained. In this case the person who had these concerns could have been told that the individual had been removed from New Zealand some 9 days before the press release was issued that may have left Mr Peters to quote the  
Dominion Post 
 
with egg on his face. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In view of the fact that the Immigration Service funds the refugee centre in west Auckland and that this man’s clothes were picked up by the police from that refugee centre what has the Minister done to stop a night supervisor and a group of Iranians from supplying illegal drugs to refugee occupants of that hostel? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I would just like to highlight to that member that he has not produced one single shred of evidence to support any claim he has made in respect of this case. This individual did have his clothes picked up by the police but he had not been staying there for several months and he was never detained at the hostel. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes he was. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: He was never detained at the hostel because he in fact claimed refugee status prior to the operational instruction of 19 September 2001 coming into effect. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Would the Minister be surprised to learn first that my informant comes from the centre for refugees at Henderson whence this person was domiciled for a short time and second that in addition to being supplied illegal drugs by a night supervisor and a group of Iranians the same degree of access to alcohol is also supplied by the same supervisor and group of Iranians; and what on earth are New Zealand’s taxpayers doing paying for this farce about which she apparently knows very little? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Given that the individual complainant has written to the member concerned and not one single shred of evidence that has been produced has actually been substantiated I would like to see some real evidence from that member before he wastes my time again. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it true that the Minister told a reporter on 14 August that there were “lots of immigrants in New Zealand” who are legal immigrants—that there are lots of illegal immigrants in New Zealand—and how many are there that she is aware of? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Lots of legal immigrants? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That is what she said on 14 August when she was being a smart alec—and 20000 overstayers in this country illegally— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I didn’t say that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want the question to be asked. The member does interpolate but other people do too and that is out of order. Please ask the question from the beginning. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hesitate to hold things up but the member did actually ask in the first attempt at the question whether she had stated there were lots of “legal” immigrants. I am sure he meant to say “illegal”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes the member did say that. I ask him now to restate his question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I said—and I will repeat it—this: is the Minister aware of her comments on 14 August to the effect that there were lots of illegal immigrants in New Zealand and is she also aware of the fact that there are about 20000 illegal overstayers; what on earth is she doing about it and how come she is not smiling any more? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The reason I am not smiling is that I am utterly confused by the ridiculousness of a question that asks me to recall a comment that I do not recall ever making to the media on 14 August. On 14 August I told the media that Winston Peters had got it totally and completely wrong which is why the  
Dominion Post  
said he had egg on his face over the matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a document dated 10 August by someone from the centre for refugees at Henderson whose name I cannot possibly divulge which outlines the facts that this Minister is so gaily denying again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is not asking another question; he is asking to table a document? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 In view of the absence of the Minister of Maori Affairs on urgent public business I seek leave to defer this question till next sitting day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to defer it. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question. 
Maori Television Service—Commencement Date 
8.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Is it correct that the Maori Television Service was due to commence broadcasting in June 2002 and when is the channel now expected to commence broadcasting following the resignation of its chief executive Derek Fox last week? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Yes. The to-air date is still dependent upon a number of operational activities as identified in the Maori Television Service’s 2003-04 statement of intent. Good progress has been made on a number of those issues. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Given that the Maori Television Service under the supervision of the Minister of Maori Affairs has now lost two chief executives in addition to both the chairman and the chief executive of Te Mangai Paho is now running over 18 months late in meeting its target on-air date and has UHF frequencies that will cause interference to several hundred thousand New Zealand television viewers can the Minister assure the House that the Minister of Maori Affairs has everything under control? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hesitate a little to bring this up but it is my understanding that the member who is asking the questions has extensive radio interests. If he gives me an assurance that that is no longer the case then I will accept it but he certainly did have them recently. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member asked a legitimate question; he deserves a legitimate answer. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Maori Television Service legislation has now been passed and the board is in control of the operation and development of the Maori Television Service. Certainly it has been taking longer to achieve conclusion than would have been hoped but a number of factors have contributed to that. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Could the Minister explain the progress that the Maori Television Service has made to date? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Suitable studio and accommodation premises have been found and staff recruited while 1100 hours of programming have been completed operational funding issues have been resolved and transmission issues are hopefully close to being resolved. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Does the Minister think it is acceptable that the Maori Television Service board drop its investigation into the complaint that Derek Fox sexually harassed a female staff member just because Derek Fox has resigned; if so are there two standards in this country: one for the Maori Television Service and one for every other employer who has to abide by the health and safety in employment regulations? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is a board matter. Of course if further complaints are to be made then that could well be a police matter. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Is the Minister able to confirm reports that the Government is now considering a proposal to use different UHF frequencies for the Maori Television Service because the allocated frequencies at 35 to 38 on the band would have the effect of causing interference to some hundreds of thousands of New Zealand television viewers; if so can the Minister advise when the Government will decide that matter? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member’s friends in Sky have certainly been involved in discussions with the Maori Television Service on this matter. The issue he refers to is one of Sky—and indeed of a number of other users—illegally camping on broadcasting frequencies reserved for Maori broadcasting. 
Deborah Coddington 
: In the light of his answer to my previous supplementary question why will the Minister not direct the board of the Maori Television Service to allow Derek Fox to clear his good name through a board inquiry? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It was Mr Fox’s conclusion that it was better to resign at that point. 
Waikato—High-tech Industry Developments 
9.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What innovative high-tech industry developments has the coalition Government been involved with in the Waikato region recently? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Among a number of innovative Waikato businesses that Government agencies have been working with one particular high-tech development firm is Pacific Aerospace Corporation. Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand—now New Zealand Trade and Enterprise—along with Investment New Zealand and Technology New Zealand have all been working closely with Pacific Aerospace Corporation New Zealand’s only aircraft manufacturer. They have been supporting its manufacturing and overseas marketing development as well as the international certification of the new aircraft the PAC750LX which is able to lift large payloads and can operate from small landing strips. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What is the significance of this company? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Pacific Aerospace Corporation is a successor of a New Zealand pioneer topdressing company established by Ozzie James in 1954 and exports fully built aircraft as well as aircraft componentry. The company manufactured the Fletcher topdresser an icon of New Zealand agriculture. It is now exporting to Singapore Thailand Australia and the United States and is planning export activity in Europe and Africa. This new aircraft is a world leader in its class. It will be an ambassador for New Zealand innovation around the world. The company expects by the end of 2004 to have earned $25 million extra in export income and by 2005 a further $30 million with extra sales increasing year on year. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Do the innovative high-tech developments include a tax or levy on the emissions of dairy cows—Waikato’s main income earner—and where were the Labour members for Hamilton when the “flatulence tax” was being debated in Garden Place last Friday? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think that for New Zealand to make a contribution to the problem of global warming is extraordinarily innovative and very responsible. 
Compliance Costs—Reduction 
10.  
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
 to the  
Minister for Small Business 
: In light of the Business NZ - KPMG Compliance Cost Survey released yesterday does he acknowledge that the Government’s attempts to reduce business compliance costs have failed; if not why not? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Small Business) 
: 
 No for the reasons I outlined in response to question No. 2 this afternoon. For the edification of the member reducing compliance costs and regulation is a journey not a destination and under this Government it will be a wonderful journey for all businesses. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: How does he explain the results of the KPMG survey that show that compliance costs are estimated to be $3400 for each employee of a small business and have increased for the majority of businesses over the past 12 months; and does he accept KPMG’s comment that the Government needs to do more than the current tinkering to reduce compliance costs? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: No. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Has the Minister received any reports at all suggesting how New Zealand businesses manage compliance costs? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Yesterday I released the perception survey prepared by Massey University on behalf of the Ministry of Economic Development. It showed that the majority of businesses deal readily with compliance requirements as they acknowledge them to be part and parcel of doing business. The survey also found that business concerns about tax-related compliance requirements were minimal and declining. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Does the Minister accept the Auckland chamber of commerce survey result that small businesses with fewer than five staff are spending 172 hours annually or nearly 4½ weeks full-time on Government red tape and compliance issues and does he consider this satisfactory; if not what does he intend doing to reduce the cost for small businesses? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: We welcome all this information and it is informing our policy debate. I can tell the member that the Hon David Cunliffe will be releasing some significant information in that regard to alleviate these issues. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: With regard to the escalation in compliance costs since Labour has been in power what is the Minister’s response to claims that his Government with its anti-business agenda is being driven by its cronies in the unions? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Obviously—like that member’s leader—the information that the member gets is absolutely incorrect and wrong. 
Immigration—Public Health Auckland 
11.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has she received if any about the adverse effects of immigration since the 1999 election on public health in the Auckland region and what action has she taken? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 While I do not have any specific reports regarding the impact of immigration on health in the Auckland region I am aware that this and other issues relating to overseas students overstayers etc. have been of concern to district health boards. In recognition of these concerns the Government has put in funding of $5.8 million for each year from 2001 to 2003. It has also changed the method of updating population changes including immigration to ensure appropriate distribution of funding takes place annually. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm that the percentage of TB cases in the Auckland region in the last 12 months that involved people who had been born outside New Zealand was 75 percent and why would she not regard this as 
it would be regarded 
in any other country by any Minister of Health as an act of treason against the interests of New Zealand people? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I cannot confirm those cases. However I would be happy to get the figures for the member. I know I have in my papers cases that go back a number of years that show we have had instances of TB coming in particularly among refugees coming into New Zealand. But it is nothing new; it has gone on for quite a number of years. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why is the population-based funding formula based on 1996 census figures which do not take into account the large number of new immigrants—at around 30000—and refugees who are part of the Auckland District Health Board’s population meaning that the Auckland District Health Board is $8 million worse off; and why do overseas students not have some form of health insurance? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member is correct that assessment of population in New Zealand has been based on the census. She may not have heard me say in my answer that we have changed that and from this year onward annual information will be available from Statistics New Zealand on population changes including immigration which will be used to inform the appropriate distribution of funding for the district health boards. This is a first and I am glad this Government has done it because migrants coming to New Zealand is not a new thing; it has been going on for decades. Ensuring that we fund it correctly is new and it is happening under this Government. The member also asked about overseas students. I am pleased that work has been done by the Minister of Immigration the Minister of Education and myself on ensuring in the future that overseas students have medical insurance. It is a shame that it did not happen a long time ago. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I again ask the Minister what she has done to tackle the rate of tuberculosis incidence in Auckland which is twice the national average and does she not admit that the cause of that is unmedically tested immigrant students and refugees as well and why should one not regard this as an act of treason against the health interests of the New Zealand people? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Two of those questions can be answered. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: First of all the member in his original question did not ask me what I had done about tuberculosis; he asked me what figures I had and I said I could not provide those figures but I was happy to get them for him. These days tuberculosis is a very treatable disease. It is treated with high levels of antibiotics. I can assure the member that any person who gets tuberculosis in New Zealand whether a new migrant or a New Zealander is treated with the very best of care. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table as one example an article from the  
Dominion Post 
 of 5 August 2003 about a Hutt dental worker dealing with over 100 schoolchildren who was diagnosed as having tuberculosis. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Alcohol—Public Consumption 
12.  
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is he satisfied at the current sanctions that are able to be imposed on those caught drinking alcohol or appearing drunk in a public place? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. Drinking alcohol in a public place is an offence under the Summary Offences Act for under-age drinkers who are subject to fines. Under the Local Government Act limited bans on all drinking of liquor in a public place can be imposed by by-laws with breach of by-laws subject to fines of up to $20000. While it is not generally illegal to drink or be drunk in a public place sanctions including fines and imprisonment can be imposed under the Summary Offences Act on those who behave in a disorderly or offensive manner. 
Marc Alexander 
: Is the Minister concerned that the only legal mechanism that Wellington police employed when they recently cracked down on 80 under-age drinkers—one as young as 9—in the central city was to take them home and fine their parents $200 when in many cases the parents did not seem to care or admitted that they could not control their children; if so what does he intend to do about it? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think it is appropriate for the police if they decide to do so to lay charges against parents for not exercising proper care over their children. It is not appropriate of course to enter convictions against 9-year-olds. That has never been legal in New Zealand. The obvious thing for the police to do under I think section 48 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act or under the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act is to take people suffering from drunkenness to their homes whether they be a child or an adult. If adults cannot be taken home they can be put in a police cell for 12 hours to sober up. 
Tim Barnett 
: Is there evidence that local liquor bans reduce some of the problems associated with excessive alcohol consumption? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. The police credit by-laws banning public liquor consumption from central business districts in some parts of New Zealand with significantly reducing disorder antisocial behaviour and alcohol-related criminal offending. [ 
Interruption 
] The member is not in Courtenay Place now; he should show some order when I am trying to answer a question. The success of targeted bans indicates that this approach is effective and appropriate as long as it is properly notified in advance and has public support as being reasonable in all the circumstances. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the Local Government (Prohibition of Liquor in Public Places) Amendment Bill which United Future voted against. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that bill. Is there any objection? There is.