Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

Speaking on 2 April, before going to Europe, I was referring to the debate within Europe and the way in which international opinion among key players appeared to be divided at that time.

💬 Hon Bill English: In the light of her apparent view of the smallness of the Anglo-American group, her view that the whole dynamic is shifting, and a steady stream of comments that have been critical of Australia, Britain, and America, is she setting a new direction for New Zealand foreign policy; or, if not, what are those comments evidence of?

It is perfectly clear that when push came to shove at the Security Council, the US-UK view commanded four votes and the other view presumably commanded 11. In that sense, the comment was entirely accurate. I do not think I could ever be accused of attacking allies in the way that the Leader of the Opposition did when he said that Australians had a good history of marginal criminal behaviour.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister think her recent comments on the progress of the Iraq war, the likely actions of a Gore presidency should he have won, and the law of the jungle, or the equivalent that could be anticipated from those words, as reported in the Guardian, are helpful to New Zealand; if not, will she keep quiet on those matters rather than trying to pose as some sort of antipodean Metternich?

What I found in the United Kingdom is that they thoroughly understand democracy, sovereignty, and the right to dissent, unlike an Opposition that knows only how to tug its forelock.

💬 John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That reply was a breach of Standing Order 372. The last part was unnecessary and breached the Standing Order. The Prime Minister, who does that regularly, should desist or be asked to desist from that.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister’s reply was brief and to the point. The comment she made might well be outside the Standing Order, but then so are quite a lot of the comments made in this House. If I were to pull up every single comment, I would have been pulling up some parts of the question.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: When the Prime Minister said that what everyone is looking at is whether there is going to be a Franco-German-Russian link-up with good links through to the Chinese, and what looks to be a small Anglo-American group, would she name—[Interruption] She said everyone. Well, let us start naming them—just one leader who is saying that, apart from her.

The comment was made on 2 April, when it was quite clear what the division of international opinion between those players was.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is why question time is taking so long. We have a question for which notice has been given, and I have quoted correctly to make sure that the Prime Minister has got it. She said “everyone” and I asked her to name someone. Now she says “2 April”. What does that have to do with it? I asked her to name just one leader who is saying that, apart from her.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister addressed the question. It might not have been satisfactory to the member, but that was the answer that was given.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Would the Prime Minister, now that she has had more time, like to give it another go? When she says “everyone”, I ask her to start naming them. Who are the people whom she says are looking at whether there is going to be a Franco-German-Russian link-up, with good links to the Chinese, against what we have, which looks like a small Anglo-American group? I ask her to please name those people.

It is perfectly clear to any student of the English language that “everyone” was used in a generic sense, as one might have used the term “people”.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Keith Locke.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have called Keith Locke.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did you call Mr Prebble last time?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Because I made a mistake.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: For the third time in 4 days, you have done that. With respect, I have told you that my party does not intend to put up with that, and I want an explanation now.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I said I made a mistake.

💬 Keith Locke: Does the Prime Minister think that because the American forces have not found any weapons of mass destruction, the Anglo-American war was constructed on a lie and that New Zealand, France, Germany, and Russia were right in wanting to give the UN inspectors more time?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is wide of the question. The Prime Minister may comment briefly.

The answer to the primary question in that is no. I am one who has always accepted that the Iraqis had some kind of weapons of mass destruction programme. I do think, of course, that they had plenty of time to destroy evidence of that, and I would say we should not jump to conclusions that there was no evidence.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Hon Bill English.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I see, Mr Speaker. Now it is back to seniority, is it? Well, I was here before him, and I will be here long after he is gone.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The call goes to the member who asked the original question, and the member knows it.

💬 Hon Bill English: When she said: “Yes, the jungle. Who wants to go back to the jungle?”, did she have in mind any action or decision of the Blair Government over the last 6 months that might have prompted her to make those comments?

I have said in this very House that the action of going to war without Security Council sanction created new and dangerous precedents. That is the reason that the New Zealand Government stuck out very strongly for a UN Security Council decision-making process.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given the Government’s position, as stated, that it thought it would be able to piggyback a free-trade agreement with the US on the back of Australia, does she think her recent comments have helped in any way that prospect, or does she realise now what immense damage she is doing to the long-term economic interests of this country?

As that member also voted against an ACT motion in this House to commit New Zealand’s support to a war without Security Council resolution, I assume that he too would not want to link any actions New Zealand would take in respect of that war to a trade agreement. Can I say that whether the United States eventually signs a free-trade agreement with New Zealand will have a great deal to do with whether it sees it as being in its economic interests.

💬 Hon Bill English: Now that she has had further time to consider whom “everyone” might have been when she said: “What everyone’s looking at is whether there is going to be a Franco/German/Russia linkup with good links through to the Chinese”, does “everyone” include her, on New Zealand’s behalf?

“Everyone” obviously does not include the Leader of the Opposition, who gives very little thought to what the future line-ups might be. He would do his country a better service if he stopped behaving like a junior congressman from Dipton.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I would like the Prime Minister now to address the particular supplementary question that was asked by the Hon Bill English.

I think I was asked whom “everyone” included. I said that it obviously did not include someone behaving like a junior congressman from Dipton.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No. I would like the Prime Minister to expand just a little on that particular question. [Interruption] We all know what the question was.

Obviously “everyone” does not include the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues.

💬 Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. From the way that the Prime Minister repeated the answer, it is clear she did not understand the question or had forgotten it. I am happy to repeat the question, to help her to give the answer in the way that you have requested.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I think that is a very reasonable point, because we have to accept the Prime Minister’s word. When the Prime Minister was responding to you on a point of order she made it clear to the whole House that she had not understood or remembered the question, because the question was actually quite clear. The Prime Minister was asked whether those were her views. That is the question she was asked.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will ask the member to repeat it.

I thank the leader of ACT for his intervention, because he has now reminded me of what the question was. I will now respond to it. It is quite clear that the original comment is in itself a question, and it is a question based on whether—and I draw the member’s attention to that word—there is going to be this or that, and “that” represents the opinions of the key players at that time.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am about to ask somebody to leave the House, because when I call a point of order only the person called has the right to speak.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: The Prime Minister was asked a question in which the critical word was “include”. It was not a matter of whom the question excluded. Maybe when she has finished telling us whom it included, she could say that. Then she said, by way of explanation in her last reply, that she had been asking herself a question. Well, no one else can read that into it, nor, I would say, can the junior lecturer from the political science department of Auckland University.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No. The Prime Minister is entitled to explain her statement in words that she chooses; members cannot dictate how she, or any other Minister, answers.

💬 John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raised with you, towards the end of last session, an issue about Ministers answering questions, and, in this particular case, it was the Prime Minister. You gave us a ruling last week on the matter of Ministers trifling with the Chair. We have just had an instance when the Prime Minister has twice given answers that were not answers to the questions she was asked, and in your ruling you said that there could be further supplementary questions if you felt a Minister was trifling with the Chair. I suggest to you that in this case she was, and that you have every reason to give further supplementary questions on this issue.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member may raise the point, but I do not consider that was so.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise it with some trepidation. I want to explain the confusion that we are having, as Opposition MPs, in question time. It is this—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Come to the point of order.

💬 Rodney Hide: A question has been put down that is very clear. It refers to a quote. It asks the Prime Minister about her statement, which she accepts, about “everyone”, and whom the “everyone” refers to. She does not answer that. She then says—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No. Please be seated.

💬 Rodney Hide: No, no. I want to go through this—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No. I refer the member to the Standing Order that states I do not have to listen to the whole point of order. As far as I am concerned, that matter is now over; it has been ruled on and dealt with.

Economy—Fiscal and Monetary Policy Management

2. CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Finance: Has he received any recent reports on New Zealand’s fiscal and monetary policy management?

Yes. The latest International Monetary Fund report on New Zealand described the Government’s macroeconomic policies as sound, and our decision to defer any new big-spending initiatives until next year’s Budget as prudent.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Has the Minister received any reports on the changes this Government has made to monetary policy?

Yes. The changes were commended by the International Monetary Fund, and by the Australian-based investment bank TD Securities, whose chief economist said that the introduction of a more pragmatic regime, and the appointment of a new Governor, had created monumental confidence amongst financial markets that the Reserve Bank was a highly credible, well-managed bank.

💬 Dr Don Brash: Is it not true that the economy’s recent buoyancy owes a great deal to monetary policy in late 2001 and early 2002, or are the lags in the effectiveness of monetary policy suddenly very much shorter than previously?

No, and I do not think we should get into questions about old lags in this context. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No. The Minister said “No”, which was a complete answer to a question.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How on earth can one answer a question like that with a “No”? How can that be considered to be addressing the question? And is it acceptable for the second Minister in a day to abuse Standing Order 365 with some sort of added epithet at the end that adds nothing to the question or to the dignity of Parliament?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The comment at the end will be withdrawn please.

I withdraw.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: As to the first part of the question, I say that Ministers can answer questions “Yes” or “No”, or in any way that they like. I am not to judge that.

💬 Gordon Copeland: Is it the Minister’s intention, given his reported comment that the fiscal surplus this year could reach $4 billion, to reduce the overall level of the tax burden on individuals and companies in the upcoming Budget; if not, why not?

As I indicated on Saturday, it is likely that the figure for the operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes will be somewhere about the $4 billion mark. That is not a cash surplus; it does not represent $4 billion in the back of my pocket. I also indicated that, due largely to changing discount rates, the final operating balance will be only about a third of that figure.

Energy, Minister—Confidence

3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Energy; if so, why?

Yes, because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Prime Minister continue to express confidence in a Minister who presided over a view of the electricity industry that clung to the free-market model, which led to a governance board made up solely of industry players who have ignored national requirements, failed to reward financially savers of electricity or to provide an appropriate degree of regulation, and failed to embark on any plan for longer-term development of supply capacity; or is it the case that as long as one works hard and is diligent, one could be a prize fool in a job and still have the Prime Minister’s confidence?

The present market model is certainly flawed. It will undergo extra change to ensure that stand-by generation can be in place.

💬 Hon Bill English: Given that the Prime Minister has said the electricity market is flawed, which of her two policies are we to believe: the one she announced a month ago, when she said that the market was seriously flawed and had to have significant change, or the one she announced yesterday, when she said that it would largely stay in place?

There will be significant change to the model, to ensure that stand-by generation can be kept aside, so that if we strike exceptionally dry years like this one, people will not be asked again to make the sacrifices they have been asked to make.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Why does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister of Energy, and why does she blame the market model, when it is a fact that the Government owns 100 percent of transmission capacity and 70 percent of generating capacity, when it is the Government that is stopping schemes like the Dobson hydro scheme from going ahead, and when this Minister of Energy, by a simple instruction to the State-owned generators, could have required them, under the statement of corporate intent, to build this stand-by generation; how can she say that it is a market failure, when the Government owns it; and how can she say she has confidence in the Minister of Energy when he has failed to give those instructions?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister can answer two of those three questions.

The present market model does not encourage generating companies to generate for a margin of security of supply, and that is what the changes will address.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister’s continued confidence in the Minister of Energy a further example of her clear lack of judgment when it comes to weak Ministers, or will her Government continue to blame its energy failings on the weather or previous Governments? When on earth will the buck stop with her office?

The fact is that the weather and previous Governments have a great deal to do with it. We cannot do much about the weather, but we can do something about Max Bradford’s mess.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave of the House to table the answer to a parliamentary question in which the Minister of Energy said some 2,000 extra megawatts of capacity are planned to come into the system in the next short while.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is.

Broadcasting—Music Local Content

4. DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) to the Minister of Broadcasting: What reports has he received on local music content on commercial radio stations?

New figures that we released today from the New Zealand Music Performance Committee show that Kiwi music made up 15.36 percent of the playlist in the first quarter of this year. That is 2 percent ahead of the figure for the same period in 2002, and ahead of last year’s overall average. It is very good news, coming in New Zealand Music Month. All this month, New Zealand will be promoted through a variety of means, and I certainly applaud that.

💬 Darren Hughes: How will the Government make sure that those targets are maintained?

New Zealand music is an $11 million industry in New Zealand at this time, or about 9 percent of a market of $200 million or so. The Government wants to see that grow through such initiatives provided by New Zealand On Air and the Music Commission. We believe that domestic success will lead to our having a share of the multibillion-dollar international music market. I tell members of the House that today 30 New Zealand bands are successfully touring on the international market.

Electricity—Domestic Pricing

5. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Energy: If domestic electricity consumers reduce electricity use by 10 percent, will that also reduce the cost of their electricity bills by 10 percent; if not, why not?

Electricity bills include the costs of transmission and business overheads, as well as units of electricity. Consumers reducing consumption by 10 percent will reduce the unit cost in their bill by 10 percent, but not the total cost.

💬 Jeanette Fitzsimons: Will the Minister review his refusal to prohibit fixed charges, for which households have to pay the same, regardless of how much they use, and require fixed costs to be recovered through unit charges, like every other business, which also have fixed costs, so that consumers who save 10 percent will save 10 percent?

The member forgets that it was this Government that introduced low fixed-charges. In August 2000, which was about when that charge came in, or a little later than that, the average charge for a low user in New Zealand was $275 a year. The average charge today for a low user is not $275, but $112 a year.

💬 Mark Peck: How does the Government’s low fixed-charge policy work, and why was it introduced?

The policy requires electricity retailers to offer small domestic consumers a fixed charge of 30c a day plus GST, with a correspondingly higher unit charge. It was introduced to ensure that people who use only small amounts of electricity pay only small bills.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: As electricity savings have only just hit 4 percent, despite the Minister’s call for a 10 percent saving, will he now ask State-owned retailers to offer some financial incentive to households that reduce their electricity consumption by the level of the target?

In 2001 I did ask, and consumers responded. In 2003 I do not need to ask; the first of them will be out within the week.

💬 Brent Catchpole: How serious is this Government in encouraging power savings when the motorways through Auckland, from Orewa to the Bombay Hills, are lit up like Christmas trees; and how does this message encourage or discourage power savings?

The issue of motorway lighting, or for that matter street lighting, is one in which we balance electricity use against road safety and human safety.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: Given that domestic consumers, who are being asked to save 10 percent, are not actually responsible for the fact that it has not rained, or for all the other problems that have been alluded to as causing this power crisis, will the Minister assure the House that domestic consumers will not be hit with a double whammy and at some point in the future face increased power charges as a way of limiting their consumption, as some people are advocating?

Some are advocating that domestic consumers be exposed to the spot price. The Government has no plans in that regard.

💬 Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is the Minister satisfied that all retailers are, in fact, enabling those who wish to change to the new tariff, to do so, given the various strategies that retailers adopt, such as people at call centres having “never heard of any such strategy”, denying that it exists, and some retailers even attempting to charge consumers a fee to change to the low fixed-charge tariff?

In the case of the one company that charged the fee, we put a stop to that straightaway. As far as the other allegations are concerned, there may or may not be some truth in them. I would be very happy to hear from the member, if she has any evidence of such practices.

OECD Ranking—Regulations

6. Dr DON BRASH (NZ National) to the Minister of Finance: How do this Government’s regulations in labour, health and safety, and resource management contribute to its goal of taking New Zealand to the top half of the OECD in terms of per capita income?

All the countries above us in the OECD rankings regulate those areas, and the great majority of them regulate them more tightly than we do. We do not improve our sustainable growth rate by failing to protect our workers and the environment.

💬 Dr Don Brash: Is the Minister concerned that the chairman of Telecom, which is New Zealand’s largest public company, blames increasingly pervasive Government regulation for cutting the company’s annual capital investment in New Zealand by half a billion dollars, or that Carter Holt Harvey, which is New Zealand’s second-largest public company, also blames Government regulation for threatening its future investment in New Zealand?

In the case of the former company, I note that other telecommunications companies have made extremely large investments, and I know that some are considering some very large investments within the current environment. Telecom appears to be following a different strategy.

💬 David Cunliffe: How does robust health and safety legislation assist the economy and those who work in it?

Workplace accidents are a cost on the economy, and we have one of the worst records in the developed world in that respect. This Government believes that workers are entitled to be safe at work.

💬 Sue Bradford: Is the Minister concerned that, despite positive regulatory changes, figures released today show that price rises in New Zealand exceed gains in wages and that New Zealand workers now earn 25 percent less than their Australian counterparts, and how is that helping New Zealand to move into the top half of the OECD?

New Zealand household incomes have been rising strongly over the last 2 or 3 years. Wage growth has been modest and non-inflationary, and that will probably contribute to New Zealand’s economic growth, rather than the reverse.

💬 Gordon Copeland: Will the Government continue to streamline resource access and approval processes in the interests of growing New Zealand’s per capita income, whenever and wherever constraints are identified?

The Resource Management Act and its operations are kept under continuous review. The Minister for the Environment is continuing to work on further proposed changes to streamline processes, but she will do so in the light of achieving sustainable development outcomes.

💬 Dr Don Brash: When the negative impact on economic growth of rising Government intervention is increasingly visible, why does the Minister continue to ignore expert OECD and International Monetary Fund advice to remove damaging regulatory barriers to growth and continue to refuse to “continue on the path of market-based reforms to accelerate growth”?

We do not take everything the International Monetary Fund and the OECD tell us. For example, they support reducing benefits, increasing the age for the pension, and introducing capital gains taxes on housing. The member is on record as supporting all those measures; the Government opposes them all.

💬 Rod Donald: Can the Minister confirm that a 2001 OECD report on red tape identified New Zealand as having the lowest aggregate annual compliance costs for small and medium-sized enterprises out of the 11 OECD countries surveyed, and that the same report showed those costs being significantly lower than those faced in Australia?

That is correct. It is also correct that our total taxation burden on the corporate sector is low by the standard of developed countries, and our tax revenue as a proportion of GDP at 30 percent is well below the OECD average.

Health Services—Rural

7. DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent initiatives has the Government announced to support rural health?

Today I have announced just under $500,000 to be allocated over the next 2 years to a further 11 primary health providers in rural areas. That money will help relieve doctors and nurses working onerous rosters in parts of New Zealand. It is part of a total of nearly $3.5 million to be allocated over the next 2 years to rural health services.

💬 David Parker: What other programmes and initiatives has the Government undertaken to improve health services for people living in rural areas?

Today’s initiative continues this Government’s support for rural health services. The Government has also made funding available for rural locum support schemes, a mobile surgical bus, recruitment and retention to support the rural workforce, and a health-line service, which I will have much pleasure in visiting this evening.

💬 Dr Lynda Scott: How many rural pharmacies will close when this Government changes monthly drug dispensing to 3-monthly, and how will the closure of rural pharmacies possibly help rural health services?

I am aware of the proposals that Pharmac has out for consultation. People in rural areas have had the benefit of dispensing for some time. The proposals are to be spread across the whole of New Zealand, and the views of both rural and urban pharmacies will be taken on board by Pharmac through that consultation process.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: If emergency helicopter services are to be considered an integral component of rural health services, why is it that in places like Northland public fundraising has to be undertaken to pay for those machines, which should be fully funded by the Government?

I am not aware of the details of policy around that. I commit to the member that I will look into that and get back to him with a response.

💬 Sue Kedgley: To supplement the useful but modest initiative announced today, why will the Government not encourage medical practitioners into rural New Zealand by writing off a year of their student debt for every year they spend working in rural New Zealand, especially after a recent survey revealed that nearly 65 percent of student doctors are considering going off overseas to pay their debt and may never return?

That is one of a number of proposals that have been put up to assist rural general practitioners and encourage them into rural New Zealand. We have funded recruitment and retention policies to do that, and we are prepared to look at the issue the member raises.

Electricity—Lake Levels

8. GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) to the Minister of Energy: Since his call for 10 percent power savings was answered last weekend with an average power saving of only 3 percent, has he and his ministerial colleagues considered lowering the minimum water levels in hydro lakes; if so, what specific measures have been considered?

Cabinet has made no decision to legislate for lower minimum levels in hydro lakes, nor has it considered any formal proposal to do so.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister aware that information published on the EMCO Comet Free and Winter Power Task Force websites indicates that given current savings, current inflows, and current storage levels, New Zealand has only 40 days’ hydro power left; if not, why now—and why does he find that funny?

I can assure the House that no matter what the member has found on someone’s website, there is no chance of our hydro lakes running dry in the next 40 days. If the member is that intent on wetting his pants, I suggest he goes to the hills before he does so.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will not make any comment about the comment that you have just allowed to stand in the question—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, I will. The Minister will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that comment.

I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave at this point in question time, so we are clear about where we are going, to table a document that shows that if New Zealand were entirely dependent upon hydro electricity, we would have—

💬 Rt Hon Helen Clark: It’s not.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Well, it is 30-percent reliant on thermal; so we have got either 40 or 52 days left. The Prime Minister should make up her mind. I want to table a document that shows we have 40 days’ hydro capacity left.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

💬 Russell Fairbrother: Have minimum levels for hydro lakes been lowered in the past in response to the prospect of power shortages?

No, they have not, but legislation enabling this was passed in the crisis year of 1992 by the then National Government.

💬 Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister agree with those who believe that the environment should always pay the price of our bad planning and waste, and does he think it could ever be acceptable to wipe out an entire species like the black stilt, just to keep the lights burning on the motorway?

I acknowledge the environmental issues around such an option and, indeed, the wider environmental issues for the townships, such as dust storms the following summer. It is an issue that is well down the Government’s list; it is, however, on the list.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Has the Minister changed his view from the one he held in 1992 on the issue of lowering the level of our hydro lakes, when he railed against such action, and will he now dismiss out of hand the consideration of that option?

There are several reasons one would not want to lower the lakes. I mentioned a couple of them in my answer to the previous question. I will mention a third, which is that they have to be filled again in time for winter 2004. I will say this: the people of this country are entitled to expect their Government to examine all practicable options, and that option will remain on the list, albeit well down the list.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: If reducing minimum lake levels is well down on the list, what measures are higher on the list, which of those measures is the Government considering, and what confidence does the Minister have that those measures will avert the need for blackouts and cold showers?

The list has been well examined by Parliament over the past several weeks. It includes, of course, all the demand-side things that the member himself talked about recently. It also includes switching New Plymouth to oil to ensure better supplies for Huntly, and on it goes. There is a range of things that are being done or that can be done.

Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act—Objectionable Material

9. MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) to the Minister of Justice: Does he consider the present offence provisions under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 for the illegal distribution of objectionable publications adequate?

My main concern about the adequacy of the Act relates to the levels of penalties for trading in, and possession of, objectionable materials—in particular, child pornography. However, concerns have also been expressed about whether the definition of “objectionable” is wide enough. The Ministry of Justice is considering the Government Administration Committee’s report in that regard.

💬 Marc Alexander: When Lower Hutt painter Anthony Johansen, who was convicted of distributing child pornography, received only a $6,950 fine, why is it that, at most, he could have received only a slightly bigger fine of $20,000, when in other jurisdictions—such as the UK and the US—he could have received a maximum of 10 or 15 years in jail; are we out of step with other nations that do recognise the severity of crimes dealing with child pornography?

We are out of step, and those penalties are inadequate—which is why I have foreshadowed officially in my statement that the maximum penalty for trading in child pornography and objectionable materials will rise from 2 years to 10 years, and why the offence provisions for possession will rise from a $20,000 fine to 2 years’ imprisonment, plus an appropriate fine. That will be introduced in legislation later this year.

💬 Tim Barnett: Does the Minister regard the proposed changes to the levels of penalties as being an effective deterrent to offences such as trading in child pornography?

The first reason for greatly increasing the penalties is to express our abhorrence of the act of child abuse that occurs every time such a video is made, but I believe it is also quite possible that they will have a deterrent effect. With others, I had the chance to visit the Department of Internal Affairs compliance unit. Immediately after the announcement of the increased penalties, and before they came into effect, it registered a marked decrease in Internet porn trading and child pornography within New Zealand. Clearly, they will have an effect.

💬 Marc Alexander: Does the Minister not consider it laughable that the fines imposed in such cases barely offset the profits made from trading in child pornography; and what steps will he take to remedy that situation?

I do not consider it laughable. I consider it quite unacceptable that I have cases in front of me, such as that of Martin Silby, who was convicted in 2002 on 12 charges of distributing objectionable material, including material showing 4-year-old girls being sexually abused by men. His penalty was 200 hours of community work, which was not the fault of the judiciary but of the inadequacy of the penalties imposed by this House. That is why we are making the change.

💬 Marc Alexander: Can the Minister tell us how the Government intends to implement the recommendations of the Government Administration Committee’s inquiry into the operation of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act and related issues?

The select committee report is currently before the Ministry of Justice, and a formal response from the Government to the Government Administration Committee will be tabled in this House within a couple of weeks. I do not want to pre-empt that report, but a range of recommendations has been made by the select committee. We will give serious consideration to all of them, but I doubt that we will implement all of them by way of changing censorship. Some things could be better done, for example, under the Human Rights Act.

Home Detention—Reoffending

10. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister of Justice: How many persons serving all or part of their sentence on home detention have reoffended, and what number of these have been recalled to prison?

The Department of Corrections keeps records of recall and breach actions taken against home detainees. Figures provided to me by the department show that of 1,017 new starts between 1 July 2002, when the Sentencing Act came into effect, and 28 February of this year, the latest period for which we have figures, recall or breach action was taken against 10 home detainees as a direct result of reoffending while on home detention—10 out of 1,017 represents recall for reoffending of less than 1 percent over that period.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This Minister has had 4 hours to answer two simple questions: how many persons have reoffended, and what number of them have been recalled? He gets up, gives us a treatise on what the officials have been doing by way of collecting information between dates, and then gives us half the answer. Can we now know, through the point of order, how many persons reoffended?

If the member had listened, I said that 10 out of 1,017 persons had been recalled for reoffending. That is less than 1 percent. How much more specific would the member like me to make that answer?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I tell the Minister that there are two questions here. The first question was: how many people reoffended? The second question was: how many were recalled? The member is saying that the people who were recalled were the total number of reoffenders, and that cannot be.

Can I repeat for the member what I said in my first answer, which was specific: recall or breach action was taken against 10 home detainees as a direct result of reoffending while on home detention.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Minister addressed the question, and I ruled that he did. He gave a specific answer.

💬 Ron Mark: My point of order could impact on my supplementary. Clearly, I am now confused. Has the Minister told the House that only 10 people on home detention have reoffended?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. That is a supplementary question that the member can now deal with in his question.

💬 Ron Mark: What sort of home detention is the Minister running that allows a man to be placed on home detention with a female he met in a mental institution, and after beating her, running up massive debts in her name, and threatening her family with violence, then allows him to abandon that woman to her debts and move on to another house to continue his home detention with another woman?

I cannot verify the accuracy of what the member has said. He might like to give that case to me, and I can check it out. I can tell the member that before an individual can be considered for front-end home detention, that individual firstly has to be given leave by the judge hearing the case, who applies statutory criteria to determine his or her suitability for home detention. Secondly, the person is then referred to the Parole Board, which also has statutory criteria, including undue risk to the community or any single person. Two major safeguards are set out under law to prevent misuse of home detention.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: How successful is the “Goff sentencing law”, where a burglar with a history of aggravated robbery can be sentenced to jail for 9 months one minute, but is allowed to walk free straight out of the courthouse the next minute—because of an amendment that Mr Goff pushed through the House—and allowed to disappear into the streets, and have the police of south Auckland scouring that city for 3 weeks trying to find the man whom the Minister’s system has given a 2-month pass free from prison?

During the entire period that that member was Minister of Justice—

💬 Opposition Members: Answer the question!

I am doing exactly that. During the entire period that that member was Minister of Justice—and, indeed, the entire period of the previous legislation—people were able to have their sentences deferred pending a decision by the Parole Board or some other agency.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. First of all, the Minister was asked how the Goff system operated; he has no responsibility for the previous administration. He has made no attempt whatsoever to address the question asked, and he should be asked either to answer it or apologise.

Speaking to the point of order, I point out that the member who asked the question specifically said that this was a new system that I was directly responsible for. I pointed out correctly that the court has always been able to defer and release a person into the community before a sentence of imprisonment is imposed.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did address the question.

💬 Lynne Pillay: Would offenders sentenced to home detention otherwise be serving prison sentences?

Some of those sentenced to home detention would have been serving short periods of imprisonment for less serious offences. Equally, the statistics I have show that a number of people previously sentenced to suspended sentences—that is, people commit the crime, are put out in the community with the sentence suspended, and there is no degree of control over them—are now under the much more severe control of home detention. That is why we abolished suspended sentences—against the opposition of the ACT party.

💬 Stephen Franks: Why did the Minister and his officials oppose the amendment that ACT put forward that would have enabled judges to impose conditions so that that situation would not have arisen—in other words, judges could have set conditions that did not mean people being released scot-free while waiting for home detention?

The member needs to recall that the judge does not have to release somebody into the community at all, pending a decision on home detention. The norm, as set out in the law, is that unless there are special conditions—members should read section 100—the person will be in prison while that decision is made.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: That’s not happening.

Yes, the member is quite right. Judges are interpreting that provision in a more liberal way than I think Parliament intended, and I am looking at it for partly that reason.

💬 Marc Alexander: In the light of the fact that one of the key perceived benefits of home detention is the saving in cost to the taxpayer, does the Minister agree that the establishment of more private prisons, which are demonstrably more cost-effective than State-run institutions, would provide a better solution for the sentencing of recidivist offenders?

The short answer to the second part of the question is no. The comment I need to make on the first part of the question is that cost saving is not the predominant reason for home detention, but I think every member of this House would applaud the fact that people who are judged not to constitute a risk to the community will keep working, paying their taxes, and supporting their families, rather than their families—and them in prison—being a burden on the long-suffering taxpayer.

💬 Ron Mark: What representations has the Hon Margaret Wilson made to him in response to the letter she received from the parents of the woman involved, and what has he done to tidy up a nonsense, whereby a man can name a woman as his guardian and her residence as the place where he will be held on home detention, and then go about beating and abusing her, and apparently—by the statistics the Minister has just quoted—it is not even recorded as an offence?

I am not familiar with the letter the member has in his hand. He might like to give me a copy of it at the end of question time. But I want to tell him that before home detention is ordered by the Parole Board, one of the factors that is taken into account is whether it is safe for people to have a detainee detained in the home environment.

💬 Ron Mark: Can the Minister explain to the House how, despite serious objections by her family that this person should not be placed in home detention with their daughter, and the obvious concerns expressed to the family by the police—who shared the same concerns—as to the true nature of this man, he ended up on home detention with her, and in one case, went out and bought a $23,000 four-wheel drive vehicle in her name—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That question was far too long.

If the facts are as the member describes them, that would most clearly be in breach of section 35 of the Parole Act, which states that the Parole Board has to take into account, under subsection (4)—which I will quote for the member—“the safety and welfare of the occupants of the residence where the offender is to be detained.” The member appears to have taken that issue up with the Acting Minister of Corrections, but has not told me about it. I presume the Acting Minister of Corrections will be following it up with her department.

Dobson Hydro Dam—Ecology

11. GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) to the Minister of Conservation: Does he stand by his statement about the proposed site of the Dobson hydro dam that he was “not prepared to rip the heart out of an important ecological area”; if so, what is the ecological importance of that area?

, on behalf of the Minister of Conservation: Mr Speaker—

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am surprised to see the Minister rise when we have the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Conservation, Mr Mita Ririnui, in the House. One would have thought that whoever was collecting the salary would answer the question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member knows full well that the Government can decide who answers the question.

And the Government did so. I answer on behalf of the Minister of Conservation. Yes, in 1983, when it was gazetted, the purpose of the reserve was officially stated to be “to preserve an example of forest in the wide valley floor containing an unusually high proportion of kahikatea and matai.”

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister concerned consider the species ulex europaeus, which predominates in the environment of the proposed hydro dam, to have high ecological value; if so, could he explain what that value is?

It gives very good cover for regenerating forest and native bush.

💬 Nanaia Mahuta: Has the Minister seen any recent reports on the Card Creek ecological area?

I did see that three MPs visited the area. Ironically, the media reported that heavy rain meant that the tour party saw the dam site, but not the actual flood zone behind it.

💬 Edwin Perry: What representation has the Minister of Conservation had from the member for West Coast – Tasman on this issue, and how long will it be before he accepts that member’s representation to build a dam on the West Coast?

It would not be up to the Minister of Conservation to build a dam on the West Coast, but I am sure the member is aware that the legal decision is that the Minister cannot take social and economic factors into account in reclassifying an ecological area.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: On 9 September last year, the Minister of Conservation stated in the Christchurch Press that he would visit the site “soon” to assess the Dobson dam proposal; will he now admit that he declined that proposal without visiting the site—otherwise he would have known, as Opposition members know, that it is full of gorse, broom, and substantial stands of macrocarpa, like the specimen I am holding?

Going by that performance, I am not sure that we are not having a re-enactment of Macbeth here, but a good deal of the conservation estate includes regenerating forest. The point about this issue is the rather rare form of valley floor regeneration. The area that is supposed to be swapped is actually much more common within the conservation estate at the present time.

💬 Jeanette Fitzsimons: Will the Minister consider using some of the conservation awareness fund to run courses for Opposition members who seem unable at the moment to recognise substantial stands of kahikatea and matai, although they should be commended for having been able to recognise gorse and macrocarpa?

The Minister of Conservation would be sympathetic, but I believe he is advised by the Minister of Finance that that would be a waste of public money, as the Opposition cannot tell the wood from the trees.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: What is more important to the Minister—a gorse-strewn, swampy wasteland, or a much larger area of unlogged kahikatea forest, as is on offer in the proposed land swap for the Dobson project?

The description of wetlands as “swampy wastelands” is why we now have only about 10 percent of them left in New Zealand.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table a piece of the pristine bush on the site of the Dobson dam—notwithstanding the statements made by the Minister or Rod Donald, who would not come to the site with us.

Item not tabled.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I note that two members have had pieces of vegetation removed from this exclusive ecological area, and I wonder whether I might seek leave to ask the Minister whether they will be prosecuted for destroying such—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member is being facetious.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was suggested that ACT and other Opposition members could not identify the species. I would like to table the example, which is the exact same species on the valley floor of Card Creek: macrocarpa.

Item not tabled.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A member has suggested that the ACT party has taken its example from a conservation area. That is not so. We have actually taken it as an example, but—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled on that matter.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I would not like the House to think that we are breaking the law.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated. I have ruled that that was a facetious comment.

💬 Gerrard Eckhoff: When will the Minister revisit the ecological status of an obscure island in the middle of the Clutha River, Birch Island, visited only by pigs and deer, in order to allow for the further development of sustainable, renewable energy?

There have been arguments over that particular piece of territory for a long period of time. Many other options are available for hydro development.

Laboratory Services—District Health Boards

12. HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) to the Minister of Health: What assurance can she give that district health boards will not implement the option contained in the report Options for Reform of Diagnostic Laboratory Services Markets to transfer the control of collection and distribution arrangements to themselves, and will she guarantee that under any scenario district health boards will continue to honour existing contracts with community laboratories?

, on behalf of the Minister of Health: The Minister cannot guarantee that district health boards will not implement the preferred option in the document, as district health boards are the agencies responsible for funding laboratory services. However, the Minister would expect to be briefed on any major change in service provision. She would expect district health boards to honour existing contracts.

💬 Heather Roy: Is she disregarding, then, the advice that district health boards have received in the confidential discussion document, and what evidence can she possibly produce that shows that laboratories run by the State would meet patients’ needs better than privately owned and operated laboratories currently do?

Responsibility for consultation on this document is that of District Health Boards New Zealand. It is up to it to consult the laboratories and to work through all those issues. I would expect that any contract signed into would uphold the very highest standards of laboratory services for all New Zealanders.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to draw your attention to the way that the Associate Minister of Health is answering questions. It is the same as the way that the Minister of Health does. If you go back and have a look at her answers, you will see that she does not take responsibility for anything. I actually wonder why we have a Minister of Health. If she is not responsible for that, what on earth is she responsible for?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

💬 Dr Lynda Scott: Is the Government planning to restrict the number of laboratory tests that a doctor can order, by having a national, restricted list of publicly funded tests; if not, what proposals are the district health boards considering to change the diagnostic laboratory services market?

No to the first part; and, secondly, the options are contained in the discussion document.

💬 Dr Lynda Scott: Does the Government intend to combine primary and secondary laboratory services, and replace fee-for-service primary care with an approved, restricted national list of tests that can be ordered by certain types of practitioners under defined circumstances; if not, what proposals is the Government considering to restrict the ordering of laboratory tests?

Responsibility for these decisions is in the hands of District Health Boards New Zealand. Regarding any major changes, the Minister would expect to hear from the boards before they were carried out. There are no such proposals before the Minister.

Questions to Members

Scampi Fishery—Inquiry

1. RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) to the Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee: How many meetings has the committee had to hear evidence in its inquiry into the administration and management of New Zealand’s scampi fishery?

To date the committee has held 14 meetings as it considers the work involved in the scampi inquiry.

💬 Rodney Hide: Has the chairperson included in his count the meetings that Mr Ian Ewen-Street says the lawyer for Barine Developments has had with him, with Mr Phil Heatley, with Mr David Carter—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rodney Hide: —and with Mr Damien O’Connor “just in a lobbying sense”, or—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rodney Hide: —are these meetings where evidence is given and allegations made—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I told the member to sit down. Those are not select committee meetings. The chairman has no responsibility for those meetings.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With due respect, that is precisely the point I am trying to make. I am asking the chairperson whether he is counting those as meetings. With the greatest respect, I think that is for the chairperson and the Primary Production Committee to answer, rather than the Speaker of this House.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will hear Mr Carter.

Speaking to the point of order, I point out that Mr Hide alleges that I have met the solicitor. I have on no occasion met with Sue Grey outside of the select committee.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: All I can say is that the chairperson can be asked only about actual meetings of the select committee.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have to raise it now, otherwise I will be ruled out saying it later. I raised this matter with you, as a point of order, on Thursday. You told us that you would come back with a ruling. What I asked then was whether there is any obligation on a member of Parliament to give an explanation to the House. I think this is important. I think now there is an obligation, because Mr Ewen-Street is reported in all the newspapers as saying, and I have read it, that Mr Carter, the chairman of the committee, has been holding meetings with the solicitor for one of the parties to the scampi inquiry. We now hear from the chairman that that statement is not true. I think we are owed an explanation from Mr Ewen-Street.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I told the member, and I recall my exact words, that I would have a look at the matter. I have had a look at the matter, and I have nothing further to report, because, of course, the “anything” in that regard is for the member himself—it is not for this House. If the member wants to make a statement he can. It is his option, and his option alone.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We now have the very serious situation of a member giving explanations in the media that are being contradicted by the chairman of the committee. I think that places that member in a very strong position. He should come to the House and give us a proper explanation, rather than using the Sunday media to say that everyone else is doing it, too.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have nothing further to add to my previous ruling. The member is not required to do that.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: This is a new point of order?

💬 Rodney Hide: Yes. I did not get to finish my question. The chairperson, with your guidance, was happy to rule on that. I am left in a bit of a quandary as to where my hanging question is at. I did not get to finish it.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member had better finish the question. I will give him another question, after Mr Peters.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the chairman understand that Mr Hide’s question is not an allegation in respect of his comments as chairman, but, rather, that Mr Ewen-Street had made the comment that everybody on the committee seems to have been briefed by the solicitor excepting the New Zealand First member, namely myself—a position for which I am very, very grateful?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Entertaining though that might be, that is not a question for the chairman of the committee to answer.

💬 Rodney Hide: In the light of the chairperson’s answer, has he sought an assurance that Mr Heatley and Mr Damien O’Connor also have not been having briefings outside the committee process from Barine Developments’ lawyer?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No. That has nothing to do with the committee chairman.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was an implication in that question that I think could lead to disorder. I wonder whether the member might consider withdrawing and apologising. I took exception to that question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Mr Carter took exception to that question. I wonder whether the member could assure the House that he meant no improper implication in his question.

💬 Rodney Hide: Absolutely! I am sorry.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member has said “absolutely”. I accept his word.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand completely the point Mr Carter is making, but it seems to me that he is in the same position as other MPs. We have a position where a member of Parliament has been reported widely in the media as saying that other MPs—and I am not suggesting any sexual impropriety—[Interruption] No, I am not; I say that as it might suggest that. What I am saying is that that member is saying, about a very important inquiry that involves a heck of a lot of money—$100 million—that there are other MPs who have been receiving these briefings from counsel for one of the parties. We can tell from Mr Carter’s reaction that he thinks that is wrong, but, really, it should be for those MPs to get up and tell us, like Mr Peters has done, that they have not had such a briefing.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, that is not correct and I think the member knows that.

💬 Rodney Hide: To try to help clear up any suggestion, I seek leave to table the New Zealand Herald of 2 May.

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

Immigration—English Language Tests

2. Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) to the Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee: When will the committee set a time to consider the petition of Kenneth Wang and others requesting a review of the new English language immigration tests?

Over recent meetings the committee has been working its way through each of the 46 outstanding petitions it has before it, relating back to the previous Parliament. Some of those have been reported back today. We will be considering the matter further at future meetings, and will be setting a meeting date in due course to hear the outstanding petitions.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Given the urgency of this issue to the thousands of people who are caught up by the change in the English language tests, and given the fact that the committee has not been able to set a date, have the chairman and the committee considered going to the Business Committee to have this issue transferred to, possibly, the labour committee, which may be a better committee to consider it in the first place; if not, why not?

We have not made that consideration. It is a matter I will take up with the committee. I am confident that we can deal with all the petitions before us in a timely manner. We are working on the basis of dealing with them in the order in which they have been received.

Question Time

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I might raise with you an issue that occurred during question time. Three times today you had to ask the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Minister of Energy to withdraw implications in their questions. You did so as a consequence of points of order that we had to raise. Points of order in themselves can be disorderly. I wonder whether you might consider, instead of our having to raise points of order on those issues, intervening on our behalf and asking for those implications to be withdrawn on the occasions that they occur.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If that is the case, it applies to everybody, but that is a very valuable suggestion.

Question to Member

On Thursday, on a matter relating to my question to the chairman of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, you said that you would look into the question of what happens when the chairperson is not in the House. In this case, today was the third time I had put the question down. I was not able to ask it on Wednesday or Thursday because the chairman of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, Mr Peter Dunne, was not in Parliament, and the House did not allow anyone else on the committee to answer it. Is there any obligation on the chairperson of a select committee to make himself or herself available in the House to answer a question, or can the chairperson simply boycott it?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The short answer to the member’s question is no. The Standing Orders Committee can look at it, but I, personally, rang Mr Dunne and ascertained that he would be here on Tuesday.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I thank you.