Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

I am advised by the State Services Commissioner that Dr Bollard left the position of Secretary to the Treasury on 20 September 2002. The position was advertised the following month. I am advised by the commissioner that he will shortly be making a recommendation to fill that position.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it a fact that interviews in respect of that position were done some weeks ago, that one of the leading contenders is a former deputy director of the Labour Party research unit, and that is one of the reasons—[Interruption] Yes, he is. I have it all here in the CV. One of the contenders is a former deputy director of the Labour Party research unit. And is that one of the reasons the appointment has been so outrageously delayed?

I am advised by the Minister of Finance that the person named may have at some stage been seconded to the Leader of the Opposition. However, I am not aware yet of the timing of the appointment. I am told that it will be shortly. I am certainly not aware of the name of any leading contender.

💬 Dianne Yates: What steps were taken to attract applicants for the job?

The position was advertised in major New Zealand newspapers, the Australian Financial Review, and in The Economist. A search consultant was used to identify possible applicants, both here and overseas. I am advised by the State Services Commission that the time taken is not exceptional, particularly where filling a vacancy involves an international search.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister telling me that he and his colleagues are not aware that the present Acting Secretary to the Treasury was a former director of the Labour Party research unit, and is that the reason there has been such an extraordinary delay from September last year?

I am somewhat at a disadvantage. I am not aware, and I will not become aware, until the State Services Commissioner advises me whom he intends to recommend.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the CV of Mr Whitehead, which sets out that he was a former deputy director of the Labour Party research unit.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Early Childhood Education—Funding

2. METIRIA TUREI (Green) to the Minister of Education: Why does the Government provide $8 million in equity funding to some community-based early childhood education providers, but not to privately-owned early childhood education providers?

The purpose of equity funding is to compensate centres in areas of the highest need for the additional education requirements and the lower capacity for fund-raising in their communities. Funding is available only to community-based centres, as the Government can then be sure that all the extra funding is spent on children, and not used towards the profit of private individuals. In addition, where funding is used to improve the assets of an early childhood service, those assets belong to the community if the service closes.

💬 Metiria Turei: While I strongly agree with the Minister’s answer, I must ask the Minister how he can justify the preferential funding of community-owned early childhood education, when this is clearly in breach of New Zealand’s current General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) commitments made by the previous National Government.

It is my understanding that it is not.

💬 Jill Pettis: What additional funding is available to support parents from low-income families whose children attend early childhood services, including private centres?

The childcare subsidy provided through the Ministry of Social Development targets $55 million a year to parents in work with study, to help them offset costs of education and care.

💬 Phil Heatley: Why does he not take the advice of his colleague John Tamihere, who says that status policies are wrong and foolish, and, instead, fund early childhood education on the basis of quality, not on who owns the centre?

Because this Government cares about quality of service, not about lining the pockets of individuals who want to take advantage of “Kentucky Fried Childcare”.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: Can the Minister confirm that rate 2 non-profit community-based early childhood providers are being funded at a rate of $3.07 per child per hour, while kindergartens are funded at a rate of $3.76, even though they teach the same curriculum, operate under the same Desirable Objectives and Practices, and may have equivalently qualified personnel; and does he believe this difference is fair?

There is a differential. Probably the most important factor is around the qualifications of the staff, and the payment that has been made for that.

💬 Deborah Coddington: Why does the Minister not just concede that he has an ideological prejudice against private providers, and this Government cannot allow mums and dads to choose which early childhood centre they send their children to, just like they choose their general practitioners?

I think the first part of the member’s question is accurate: I do have a preference for community-based childcare.

💬 Metiria Turei: Further to the Minister’s answer to my first supplementary question, does the Minister not understand that our GATS commitments in private primary education services include early childhood, and mean that we are required to treat foreign-owned corporate early childhood education providers exactly the same as locally owned, community-owned providers?

Yes, I do, and no, it does not.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt, but we have a difficult situation down this end of the House. Several times through the questions that have been asked Mr Mark Peck has shouted out abuse. I am sure you have not heard it, but in both cases it has interrupted the flow of the question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: When it gets to my attention the member will be leaving.

💬 Rodney Hide: Well, I am bringing it to your attention.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, you have now, and I will be listening very carefully.

💬 Metiria Turei: Will the Minister ensure that at Monday’s Cabinet GATS decision meeting, that decision will give effect to his statement made at the Hui Taumata Matauranga, just 2 weeks ago, that the Government intends to pull back New Zealand’s commitments in education so that community-owned early childhood education providers can be protected from foreign pillage?

I stand by the statement I made at the Hui Taumata Matauranga, and that is that this Government is involved in clarification of GATS commitments made by the previous Government to make it clear that both State and community education are protected.

Electricity—Supply

3. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister of Finance: In light of reports that there is an electricity supply crisis in New Zealand, does he agree that a failure to act by the Government could result in significant damage to the economy; if not, why not?

Yes, but it is important not to jump at shadows. It is premature and unhelpful to talk of a crisis at this point.

💬 Hon Bill English: What does the Minister say to the Engineers Union when Andrew Little, the national secretary of the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, put out a statement today saying: “We’ve got 350 workers at Pacific Steel mills sitting around twiddling their thumbs, and millions of dollars of plant sitting idle, because the spot prices are so erratic.”; and why is that not a crisis?

I always thank the Engineers Union for its strong and loyal support for the Labour Party whenever I am talking to its members. Secondly, I would be asking them whether this raises any questions about the nature of the electricity market, which, of course, is an interesting question to ask the members opposite.

💬 David Parker: What steps is the Government taking in relation to the security of electricity supply?

Obviously it is monitoring the situation closely, and certainly trying to work out the likely shape of the supply situation, particularly for the coming winter, which relates largely to projected inflows to the southern lakes. The Minister of Energy is working closely with industry to be prepared to put in place options in the event of a shortage continuing through the winter.

💬 Rod Donald: Does the Minister intend to act on the advice of the National Party energy spokesperson, Gerry Brownlee, who called last Monday for projects to develop renewable energy to be abandoned; if so, can he explain the logic of this approach, given the current shortage of gas?

No, indeed I do not. As shareholding Minister in three of the State-owned enterprises, I can say that the Government is extremely keen on renewable energy projects. Indeed, projects ranging from Project Aqua through to wind energy give some of the highest prospects for meeting our energy needs over the next 3-year to 5-year period.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: What steps is the Minister and his Government taking to address the barriers posed by the Resource Management Act and the Department of Conservation for projects such as the expansion of the Arnold River project on the West Coast?

Apart from that project it would be hard to find any significant projects that have been held up, in the last 5 years or so, by anything relating to the Resource Management Act. Of course, that was not the matter of the Resource Management Act; that related more to the decision taken by a consenting authority that had to be involved—the Department of Conservation. I think what has to be said in that respect is that the nature of the modern energy market tends to lead to a situation where there is, perhaps, insufficient reserve capacity maintained, because commercially orientated producers do not wish to employ large amounts of excess capital most of the time. There is therefore a trade-off we have to consider, between somewhat higher average prices and higher security of supply.

💬 Larry Baldock: Is the Minister concerned at the effect electricity blackouts or price hikes could have on New Zealand families this winter, such as, for example, elderly people who may have to limit their heating requirements; if so, what plans does the Government have to address it?

Yes, obviously that is a concern, but it is true to say that if one looks at the last 2 dry years, particularly 2001, and what is happening at the present time with Otahuhu B down for a few days and Huntly on half power, the primary impact is on business, because of the nature of the way the electricity market works. It actually works primarily to affect those large users of energy, rather than domestic consumers. Domestic consumers will be faced with requests for savings of the sort that occurred in 2001, should the dry year eventuate—which looks possible at this point.

💬 Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm his earlier answer that the Government believes that electricity prices need to rise, to solve this problem?

It is better not to paraphrase what I said, in what is a complex and difficult area of public policy. If we wish to maintain more reserve capacity—say, a one in 20 dry-year capacity—that inevitably means maintaining a higher level of capital invested with the industry than would otherwise occur, and that means, on average, somewhat higher prices than would otherwise be the case. But the lower prices are bought at the expense of very high volatility of prices, as we have seen in the last 48 hours.

Iraq—Emergency Assistance

4. MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: What, if any, emergency assistance will New Zealand make available to alleviate the human consequences of war in Iraq?

New Zealand has today committed $3.3 million in emergency humanitarian relief, through United Nations agencies and other relief organisations, to address the human cost of a war with Iraq. The United Nations has warned that without immediate assistance from the international community, thousands of lives will be lost, not simply through war but through its consequences in preventing civilian access to food, clean water, sanitation, shelter, and medical assistance. Our initial commitment is aimed at addressing those concerns.

💬 Martin Gallagher: How specifically has that money been allocated?

As indicated, the key needs of Iraqi people will be emergency shelter, food, and medical care, in an environment where, according to the United Nations, hundreds of thousands of people may be displaced, and infrastructure and services are likely to be destroyed. To help meet those needs New Zealand will be providing $1 million to the World Food Programme immediately, and half a million dollars each to the Red Cross, the United Nations Commission for Refugees, and the United Nations Children’s Fund. The balance of the initial funding will go to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the UN agency for demining, and to selected non-government agencies operating within Iraq.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Why has the New Zealand Government not considered providing the Army’s field hospital, which is trained for deployment and which did superb work in East Timor, to the “coalition of the willing” so they can now provide that essential humanitarian assistance?

The Government has considered that, and it is a possibility at a later date. The first assistance that we will be giving will be emergency relief assistance. That is best provided by agencies already operating in and around Iraq that have a proven track record at delivering that assistance. Other forms of assistance will be considered subsequently by the Government.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Can the Minister explain to the House why it is acceptable for the New Zealand Government to offer assistance to the people of Iraq after the war, but it is not acceptable to offer assistance to those same citizens to be liberated from a dictator who has killed 3 million people; and why is it not acceptable to join the 45 countries that are providing military, logistic, or public support to the US-led effort to enforce UN Resolution 1441?

We will be providing the assistance that I have outlined because the immediate consequence of the war will be that innocent people, who cannot be held responsible for the excesses of the Saddam regime, will suffer the consequences of such a war. Given the nature of the Saddam regime, this Government has been active in providing refuge in New Zealand to people from Iraq who have tried to escape that regime. Of course, the member is aware that there are many countries around the world with unacceptable human rights records. I am not aware that the world is going to war with all of those countries.

💬 Keith Locke: Does the Minister expect that some of the human consequences referred to could be the result of the explicit targeting of the civilian infrastructure he just referred to, such as power stations or broadcasting facilities; if so, what is the Government doing to caution the United States against such targeting?

It is my understanding of the intentions of the countries that may be in conflict with Iraq that they will try to do minimum damage to key infrastructure, but, clearly, no matter how smart weapons are, they are not smart enough to stop human casualties and the subsequent cost of casualties. The United Nations estimate is that 600,000 to 1.4 million people may be made refugees, and another 2 million on a medium-level scenario of the war would be internally displaced. Clearly, that will involve huge human costs. We, and we hope the Americans and others involved, will be trying to minimise those costs.

Question No. 3 to Minister

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As soon as I am able I want the House to go back to the question previously to do with the issue of electricity. I seek leave to table a statement by Mr Gerry Brownlee, of 16 March, that was referred to in comments made by Rod Donald when Rod Donald quite inaccurately referred to the statement put out by Gerry Brownlee.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Question No. 4 to Minister

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I saw Mr Martin Gallagher go for a call. If it is acceptable for the National Party and other parties to take many calls, why are you limiting a Labour member?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Labour members are allocated one supplementary question per question, and that is the understanding they have. They do not have any other. If they seek leave to have one now, then they will miss one out in the future.

Some member of the Labour Party may have said that to you, but if an MP rises and goes for the call, then I think you are obliged to take that member. For all we know, Mr Gallagher may have a new view on Iraq and he should not be suppressed.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I decide who gets supplementary questions. It is done in a manner that has been established with each of the parties by way of discussion that I have had with them. Some members provide me with lists on how many supplementary questions they want on a particular question, and they can do it that way, but the general rule stands, and that is the way it is.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect, I want to contest what you have just said. You are now saying that you are in charge of discipline where the Labour Party is concerned. That is not the case. If that member wishes to rise and jeopardise the rest of question time by being undisciplined, that, nevertheless, is his entitlement.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member to be seated. I will not have this way of dealing with questions. There is a standard way of dealing with questions, which I have adopted and discussed with each whip of each party. The member knows that I have discussed it with his whip and with the Labour whips. A pattern was established, and that is the way the pattern remains.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The fact remains that if an arrangement has been arrived at, in my view it is unofficial, it is not the way Parliament conducts democracy in Western society, anyway, and if that member seeks to raise a call, then he is entitled to it. He jeopardises his whole party arrangement; but it is not something that should be controlled by you but, rather, by the party itself. That is what happened here.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Mr Gallagher is perfectly competent to raise a point of order about his non-call if he wishes. It is not for other members to intervene in this way.

Mori Sportscasting International—Function

ā

5. RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Did any of his Ministerial staff attend the awards dinner on 6 July 2002 in their role as commentators for Māori Sportscasting International; if so, what action has he taken, given that he told this House yesterday that he did not believe Te Puni Kōkiri’s expenditure on the dinner acceptable?

Yes, one of my staff attended the awards dinner in a private capacity. As signalled yesterday in the House, I have communicated in writing my concerns to the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri.

💬 Rodney Hide: Has the Minister any concerns over how Mr Hemana Waaka has been paying back civil servants, politicians, and their staff—especially as he pays his “volunteer sportscasters” under the counter, through TAB accounts, to dodge tax—or will Miss Gail Parata be pushed out of the Minister’s office, just like Mr Te Rangi was, to save the skins of those higher up the food chain?

No.

💬 Mita Ririnui: What was the purpose of the training development wānanga held by Māori Sportscasting International Ltd?

I am advised that the purpose of the wānanga was to train staff in the use of the different broadcasting equipment, and in commentating and reporting techniques. A lot of those members who attended did so in a voluntary capacity, like several other Māori around the country.

💬 Katherine Rich: Why does the Minister think it is appropriate that Te Puni Kōkiri should undertake the review of Te Māngai Pāho’s funding of Māori Sportscasting International, when it has also funded the same organisation to the material benefit of three Ministers and their staff, and why does he not call in the Auditor-General and have a proper clean-up?

There will be a proper clean-up. There is an independent person in the make-up of the three-party group that will review this whole exercise.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister spoken to the Minister about his performance on this and other issues, or is it the case that in her administration there is one standard for certain Ministers, and any old standard where Māori Ministers are concerned?

The Prime Minister talked to me on several occasions. I am not afraid of being Māori, unlike some other Māori in this Parliament.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, Mr Peters.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister of Māori Affairs describe or name those Māori members to whom he refers?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Did the member want a supplementary question?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thought he was raising a point of order. I should have called another member ahead of him, but as he is on his feet, I will allow him to ask a supplementary question.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought the member was raising a point of order, because it is absolutely out of order to reflect on the character of any member. I am not aware of which Māori member the Minister of Māori Affairs was referring to, but to say that someone is afraid to be Māori is, clearly, a grossly insulting statement. I object on behalf of whoever the member is whom the Minister referred to.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Objection has been taken. I ask the Minister to withdraw his comment.

I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister had any cause to talk to the Minister about this particular issue; if so, what was the comment she left with him as to his performance on it?

I remind the member that this is an operational matter at this stage. I have responsibilities here that I manage like every other responsibility in this portfolio.

💬 Rodney Hide: When did the Minister find out that his executive assistant was working for Māori Sportscasters International as a commentator, and that she had been flown to Auckland for the old-fashioned booze-up at the expense of Māori Sportscasters International, via Te Puni Kōkiri, and what did he do when he found out about it?

I found that out recently, but details regarding all the people whose airfares were paid for were tabled in a public report on 6-8 July 2002. The staff member in question continually does that, along with a whole lot of other volunteers.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption] They do not like it, do they?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is one all, and that is where it stops.

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I raise an issue to do with the supplementary question that was asked by Rodney Hide, implying that some politicians have been paid in terms of the original question? I believe that impacts on all politicians in this House, and I challenge Rodney Hide to get up and name the politicians whom he is implying were paid.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am ready to help the member. The meaning of the word “politician” is much wider than just members of Parliament, but if Rodney Hide was making any comment about any current member of Parliament, he will stand and withdraw that comment.

💬 Rodney Hide: What am I withdrawing and apologising for?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I said that if the member had made any comment denigrating any member of Parliament, in the supplementary question he asked—and I am not talking about the use of the word “politician”, because that term has a wider meaning than just a member of Parliament—

💬 Rodney Hide: I didn’t.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: He did not? Right.

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I actually wrote down what the member said, and he referred to politicians, and, in terms of the supplementary question, he was referring to the politicians in this House. I am asking Rodney Hide whether he is telling the truth, and, if he has got the guts, to name the politicians.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: First of all, the member made an offensive reference to another member of this House. He will now stand and withdraw and apologise for that comment.

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Secondly, I have been told by Mr Hide, quite specifically, that he was not referring to a member of this—

💬 Rodney Hide: No, I didn’t say that.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: This is just trifling with me now. I asked the member a particular question. The word “politician” goes much wider than members of this House. I asked the member whether he had been referring to any particular member of this House. Did he say yes or—

💬 Rodney Hide: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I want the member to answer my question.

💬 Rodney Hide: I am not answering a yes or no question, because you have changed the question. The question you asked me, Mr Speaker, as Hansard will reflect, was whether I was denigrating any MP. No. My question was this, and let me read it to the House for Mr Samuels’ benefit: “ ... how Mr Hemana Waaka has been paying back civil servants, politicians, and their staff”. “Paying back” does not mean just money; it means having a dinner and a booze-up.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, the member has made that comment. He has assured me that he meant it in that way, and, of course, the member’s word will be accepted. Did the member want to ask a supplementary question?

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When Mr Dover Samuels sat down, he suggested that one of the people who had gone to the booze-up was Richard Prebble. I most certainly did not. I understand that Dover Samuels went, but I certainly did not.

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: Mr Speaker, I know that you have wide interpretations about the description that was made, in terms of the implication by Rodney Hide in his identification of politicians, but I ask you to think again. In the context of his supplementary question he was talking about politicians being paid. I think it is incumbent upon that member, if he is actually telling the truth to this House, to identify who the politicians are in terms of his question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I have—

💬 Rodney Hide: I am happy to.

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: The member should get up or shut up.

💬 Rodney Hide: I am very happy to name the politicians. The ones who have been paid back are Mr Dover Samuels, who was invited along for a knock-up dinner and a booze-up, and his entourage; Mr John Tamihere, who was invited for dinner and a booze-up, along with his entourage; and then we find out today that staff members of the Minister, Parekura Horomia—whose department oversaw the $10,000 grant—also got a knock-up dinner and a booze-up. I am sorry, but in common parlance that is referred to as the payback.

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask for your considered ruling in terms of the very wide, loose, gruesome explanation or interpretation that Rodney Hide has placed on that. When one is responding and saying that somebody is being paid, I take that as meaning remuneration in the form of money, and not in the fact that we were invited to a dinner, so I ask for—[Interruption] Absolutely I was there, and I will front up.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have called for order. Please be seated. The member has asked me to look at the transcript—well, I presume he has asked me to have a look at the words. I will certainly examine the transcript.

💬 Rodney Hide: Mr Speaker—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: A supplementary question?

💬 Rodney Hide: I am just trying to work it out. I have lost count. Have I had two supplementary questions yet, Mr Speaker? [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have now had enough, and I am going to impose a lot stricter discipline than I have done. I do not like doing this, but I am going to impose it from now on, today. The member may, of course, have up to three or four more supplementary questions, and then for the rest of question time his party would get none. He has had two supplementary questions. If he wants a third then he is, of course, entitled to take it.

Supreme Court—Judicial System

6. MURRAY SMITH (United Future) to the Attorney-General: Does she consider the proposed Supreme Court will improve the quality of New Zealand’s judicial system?

Yes.

💬 Murray Smith: Given that the proposed Supreme Court is going to comprise five senior New Zealand judges, who presumably are, or could have become, Court of Appeal judges, with the Court of Appeal reduced from five to three judges, is her proposal not simply a renaming of the Court of Appeal and the creation of a new, intermediate appeal court; if so, how will that improve the quality of our judicial system?

There is no proposal to reduce the number of members on the Court of Appeal at this stage. My understanding is that it will remain exactly the same as it is.

💬 Russell Fairbrother: Has the Minister received any reports on the quality of the proposed Supreme Court?

Yes. Senior law lord Lord Steyn, in his talk at Victoria University, said: “The Privy Council is going to be replaced by a Supreme Court of the highest calibre, a court capable of delivering justice in accordance with the law at the highest level.”

💬 Richard Worth: How can the Attorney-General possibly claim that her new local court will improve our judicial system when the legal profession does not agree with her—which is why the Auckland District Law Society recently passed a unanimous motion calling for appeals to the Privy Council to be retained—and when the Privy Council has proved the Court of Appeal wrong in seven out of the last 11 cases?

The Auckland District Law Society recently had its annual general meeting, which 55 members out of 3,600, or 1.5 percent, attended; they passed the resolution. So, in effect, 1.5 percent of those members passed that resolution.

💬 Opposition Member: It was unanimous.

It was unanimous for 1.5 percent.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have said that there will now be a lot fewer interjections. The Minister is giving an answer, and unless she gets strictly political, when, of course, comments can be made, I want the answer to be heard in relative silence.

💬 Dail Jones: In the light of the fact that the Attorney-General is the principal law officer of this Parliament, can she tell the House how many years of legal practice in court she has had, and what type of cases she undertook in court?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No. That question is wide of the mark and does not need to be answered.

💬 Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Surely we are talking about the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council, which are court-based. This is the principal law officer of Parliament, and the House and the country are entitled to know what experience this person has to make this type of decision. It is a very simple question based on the important factors of appeals to the Privy Council and practice in court.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No. That is a different question and should be put down as such.

💬 Gerrard Eckhoff: Why does the Minister not let the people of New Zealand decide whether the change will improve or damage our judicial system, by a referendum on this vital constitutional matter?

This matter has been decided in similar jurisdictions. There has never been a referendum. The matter has been one of debate and discussion in New Zealand for over 30 years. Part of the process at the moment was that in December 2000 a discussion paper was put out, and since then debate and discussion have been going on, as is happening at the moment, with the matter being referred to the select committee, which I think is the most qualified body to be able to make a recommendation on that.

💬 Murray Smith: How does transferring our judges from the first tier of our appellate structure into the second, leaving the Court of Appeal under-resourced for its heavier workload, somehow improve the quality of our judicial system?

The Court of Appeal will not be left under-resourced.

💬 Dail Jones: In view of her answer that the Justice and Electoral Committee is the group that is qualified to make this decision, is she saying that she herself has no qualifications to make it?

No, I am merely following correct parliamentary process. As you know, as a member of that committee, the bill has been referred to that committee for submissions to be heard. I know you will hear them with an open mind, and will then debate the matter and report it back here.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, the member will hear them with an open mind, not me.

💬 Murray Smith: If New Zealand and the Caribbean countries withdraw from the Privy Council, removing 60 percent of its workload, what consideration has the Minister given to the fate of all the other small Commonwealth countries that continue to be dependent on the Privy Council for the final right of appeal; or does she not care about them?

Of course we care. We are a very caring Government. But they are independent, sovereign countries. I think there will be four left. They very rarely use their access to the Privy Council, but I am sure they are quite capable of speaking for themselves and addressing that issue with the Lord Chancellor.

Question time interrupted.