Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

This morning I travelled to Format Print in Petone, where Carol Beaumont from the Council of Trade Unions, Simon Carlaw from Business New Zealand, and I launched the Skill New Zealand brand—and this is it in my hand—for our tripartite campaign to lift the number of people in workplace learning from 106,000 to 250,000. The Government has committed $800,000 for resource and promotional material to support this campaign. This will complement the efforts of the other partners and industry training organisations to promote industry skills acquisition in the workplace.

💬 Moana Mackey: What concrete commitments has the Government made in the area of workplace learning, and what progress is being made towards them?

We are committed to 150,000 trainees by 2005, and a quarter of a million by 2007. There has been a 10 percent increase in trainees from 30 June 2002 to 30 June 2003. We are committed to reaching 7,500 Modern Apprenticeships by 2006, and currently have 5,739 in training. We are committed to having the Gateway programme in all decile 1 to 5 schools. A further set of schools is being selected for next year. This will mean approximately 63 schools currently will be augmented by almost all decile 1 to 5 schools by the end of next year.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Noting that the single greatest concern of employers is the issue of basic literacy and numeracy skills, can the Minister explain why his Government cancelled a nationwide system of national testing as a basic quality assurance measure in the compulsory sector to ensure that all school leavers left school able to read, write, and do mathematics?

That question is better directed to the Minister of Education. But if he were here I am sure he would say that this Government has replaced that programme in order to ensure that young New Zealanders leave school literate and numerate, so that they can move on to advance their careers or their learning, as they choose.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: What is the Minister’s response to the adventure education industry’s claim that his restrictive fee maxima imposed on private training establishments will lead to the closure of 15 regional training centres and the loss of 200 full-time jobs in that industry alone; and how does such an outcome raise the skill levels of the New Zealand workforce?

My response would be to point to the fact that the private training educators have access to $164 million worth of training opportunities and youth training money; $146 million, rising to $150 million next year, of what is currently called “EFTS” money; as well as money that comes through sources such as the Ministry of Social Development. So I do not think that will happen.

💬 David Benson-Pope: What is the particular importance of industry training for both employers and employees?

Industry training is a way of improving workplace performance, productivity, and teamwork. When workplaces are not committed to training, there is a lack of leadership, low productivity, and poor performance, and experienced workers are often reduced to the status of assistant orange boy. I think the illustration I have here in the House today is, of course, the National Party.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, that last comment will be withdrawn. I will not have that here today. I want the last comment withdrawn.

I withdraw.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: I seek leave to table the document in which the claim of loss of jobs in regional centres is made by Adventure Education.

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

Foreshore and Seabed—Crown Ownership

2. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Was Hon John Tamihere correct when he said she would announce the Government’s plans for the seabed and foreshore next week, and will they include plans for her Government to introduce legislation for exclusive Crown ownership?

Like Mr Tamihere, I hope it will be possible to give a further indication of Government thinking next week, although, given the complexity of the issues, I am not prepared to commit to a precise time for that. Legislation will be required to ensure that private exclusive title is not created over what has long been regarded as public domain.

💬 Hon Bill English: Given that the Prime Minister consistently repeats that private exclusive title will not be able to be granted, will she achieve that by asserting what she claimed 6 weeks ago: that the beaches and the foreshore and their ownership lie with the Crown?

As I recall, some few weeks ago I said they had long been considered to lie with the Crown. It has been very difficult to find a piece of legislation that spells that out.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the legislation she proposes clarify what has been the understood status quo: that the foreshore and seabed lie with the Crown?

The proposed legislation, which we will be consulting on, will clarify that the public has rights of access and that Māori also have interests to be protected. We are endeavouring to reconcile two sets of rights.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Does she still consider that the ownership of the foreshore and seabed belongs with the Crown—yes or no?

What I consider is irrelevant; it is a question of what the legal position is, and the legal position on that is not clear.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have a continuing problem. I asked a very specific question—what the Prime Minister considers a matter to be; yes or no—and she deflected it by saying it is not important what she considers. A lot of people may agree with that, but I want an answer to my question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister is not required to be put in a position where she just has to say “Yes” or “No”. There may be other options. After she made that comment, she gave one of those other options.

💬 Metiria Turei: Why is it OK to override Māori customary title that does not restrict access to the coast, while at the same time ignoring Pākehā private exclusive title that does restrict public access to the New Zealand beaches?

As I said last week in answer to a similar question from the member, the Minister of Agriculture and Minister for Rural Affairs has an access committee looking at precisely some of those issues.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: Can the Prime Minister assure New Zealanders that at the end of the process she has embarked upon and the Government is involved in at present, the traditional understanding of rights of access to, and enjoyment of, the foreshore and seabed by all New Zealanders will not have changed, and that life will carry on pretty much as it was prior to the recent court ruling?

That is certainly the direction we are heading in, and I note that the member, like myself, noted that very helpful comments came from Mr Jones of the Māori Fisheries Commission this morning about the need for both sides to this issue, the Crown and Māori, to look for a win-win solution.

💬 Stephen Franks: If she wants to tell Māori they have a legitimate claim, why would they settle for anything less than the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession promised by the treaty, or is so-called guardianship just a softening-up?

This is not a treaty issue; it is a common-law issue. It is clear that in the law of New Zealand at the present time, issues like customary rights and title are not clearly defined, at all. That is why I agree entirely with the National Party spokesperson on Māori affairs that there is a need to sort it out.

💬 Hon Bill English: Why did the Prime Minister make her public statement 6 weeks ago giving the impression she would move to assert Crown ownership, when she has told us today that her own views are irrelevant, that there is no legislation to back up Crown ownership, and that it is a common-law issue that needs to be sorted out; did she not know that 6 weeks ago?

What I said some weeks ago is what most New Zealanders would have understood, which is that those areas had long been considered to lie in the public domain. The Court of Appeal has set in train a process that could lead to them being put out of the public domain. That is what the Government, on behalf of the public of New Zealand, cannot tolerate.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has the Prime Minister put in train a series of negotiations with her Māori members to the effect that one condition is that they would bargain the right to access for the Māori people for aquaculture rights, as part of that deal?

That is not the process that is in train.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: In the light of the Prime Minister’s answer to my earlier question, can she give the House a view about reported statements that Auckland iwi groups are now preparing to lodge claims over the foreshore and seabed, because they fear that those opportunities might be about to be removed from them?

No doubt many iwi are studying the Court of Appeal decision. It is unfortunate that some people have jumped from a decision about where certain matters can be heard to an assumption that ownership automatically follows.

💬 Hon Bill English: Is the Prime Minister aware of the answer to a question provided yesterday by Margaret Wilson, outlining 16 detailed claims that have been put in front of the Māori Land Court, and what steps does the Government intend to take to prevent those claims proceeding far enough to frustrate the will of New Zealanders that ownership of the beach stays with the Crown, for the use of everybody?

As the member’s party’s own Māori affairs spokesperson has said, the Māori Land Court is probably the appropriate place to look at issues like customary rights. But the Government will have more to say on how to proceed in future when it puts the proposals out for consultation.

💬 Stephen Franks: If this is simply a matter of common law and not a treaty issue, why does not Parliament deal with it and change it—as it does in the interests of all New Zealanders, almost every day?

I am sure the member does not mean to imply in that question that the people of New Zealand and their various interests are never consulted. What we are on about here is nation building and getting win-win solutions—not polarisation, as practised by Opposition parties.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Government parties do; Mr Dunne did.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have warned Mr Smith about interjecting from a more favourable position. That is his one warning for today.

Lake Taupo—Water Quality

3. MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiāriki) to the Minister for the Environment: What is the Government doing to stop the deterioration of the water quality in Lake Taupo?

The Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture are negotiating with local and regional government and Tuwharetoa to stem the deterioration of Lake Taupo’s water quality, by managing land use and sewage disposal to reduce the amount of nitrogen entering the lake.

💬 Mita Ririnui: Why are there no short-term solutions to reverse the deterioration of the lake’s water quality?

We are seeing the results of decades of nitrogen runoff. Lake clarity has been cut from 15 metres to 14 metres by what happened before 1963, so clarity will diminish further by what has happened in the last 40 years. Our work is now focused on how we reduce that nitrogen by 20 percent over the next 15 years. If we do not change what we do on the land, then the problem will get worse.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Minister give the Rotorua District Council a green ribbon environmental award for its report, on recycled paper, with organic ink, and in a bicultural format, when this year Lake Rotoiti has been in the worst state ever—bays closed for 6 months; the entire lake closed off—or are flash recycled reports more important than substance for this Minister for the Environment?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The original question was about Lake Taupo. If the Minister wants to comment briefly, she may do so.

I awarded the Rotorua District Council a Green Ribbon Award for its excellent state of the environment report, which made effective use of graphics and plain language to communicate the district’s key environmental issues. Those did include the deteriorating water quality in Rotorua’s lakes, which has been, like the water in Lake Taupo, deteriorating for many years and for which there is no overnight solution. The work has begun, with Environment Bay of Plenty, the local council, and also central government working together—not as quickly as in the case of Lake Taupo because they did not come and ask 4 years ago, as Environment Waikato did, with Tuwharetoa, for some help and a partnership in cleaning up Lake Taupo.

💬 Jeanette Fitzsimons: Returning to Lake Taupo, what assistance, in the form of research or any other kind of assistance, will be available to landowners to change their land-use practices; does the Government envisage, eventually, some penalties if people refuse to cooperate?

To deal with the latter part of the question first, at the moment we are offering more carrots than penalties, because I would have to say that whenever I fly over the farms on the western side of the lake, I can see that the farmers have tried everything they can to mitigate nitrogen runoff. It is the quality of the soil that is causing the problem. So on that part, research and investment in research by both central and local government is extremely important, in order to find the options for farmers to continue farming in that area.

Algerian Suspected Terrorist—Immigration Service

4. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Is she concerned that the “lie in unison” issue, if left unchallenged, may undermine confidence in the integrity of her and her department?

No. However, the issue is not being left unchallenged, as an investigation is taking place, led by the Secretary of Labour.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: How does the Minister intend to redeem any confidence in herself or the department of which she is in charge, when in the last 3 days, after hearing about the “lie in unison” memo, we have heard the following lame statements by herself and her officials: the language used in the document was “highly regrettable”; “Normally, if there is anything untoward they would let me know, and I haven’t heard anything.”; or “I’ll have to get back to you. I’ve got no recollection of the thing. It sounds like some sort of flippant aside, really.”, and when all those statements are in relation to a suspected terrorist who was able to enter and stay in this country?

The person who entered this country was dealt with under legislation that took effect in October 1999. The law has been that way for some time. Those procedures have been dealt with appropriately. I have fully accepted that the comments that were included in the media log that was put together by the media adviser in the Immigration Service were not reflective of an agreement to lie, because I would have had to be party to such an agreement and I was not.

💬 Hon Murray McCully: Is it correct that she gave an address on 16 July in which she said: “I can assure you that the New Zealand Immigration Service reinforces with all staff the code of conduct that emphasises the highest levels of integrity”; can the Minister advise how an agreement to “lie in unison”, and how destroying evidence or withholding it from the Ombudsman are consistent with that high level of integrity?

Yes, I did say that. I do take those matters extremely seriously. I can say that the Secretary of Labour has taken over this inquiry and has established his own terms of reference for an investigation into all the allegations that have been made.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: When she said the language used in the document was “highly regrettable”, why did she not pursue the true intent of Ian Smith’s words, when he said: “I was let down badly. Everyone had agreed to lie in unison, but all the others caved in and I was the only one left singing the original song.”; can she, as Minister, explain why she accepted a non-explanatory apology?

I accepted the apology from Ian Smith, which was given to me over the telephone. What I should say, though, is that that very quote highlights the reality of the situation for me. I was the only person who spoke about the matter. It must refer to me and, therefore, I could be a party to such an agreement only if one existed. No such agreement existed.

💬 Hon Murray McCully: Given that the Minister has just told the House that if there had been an agreement to lie then she would have had to be a party to it, can she understand the absurdity of having an investigation that is conducted by a public servant who reports to her, and who is dependent upon her recommendation for his bonus and, ultimately, for his job?

That is not correct. The Secretary of Labour is accountable to the Minister of Labour in that regard. I have confidence in Dr Buwalda’s ability to deal properly with this matter—as the State Services Commissioner said in his letter to the Hon Murray McCully yesterday.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I ask the Minister this again, and request that she give me an answer this time: why did she accept a non-explanatory apology from the spokesperson for the Immigration Service, Ian Smith?

I have been offered a profuse apology by the individual concerned, and I have accepted it. That is a personal matter. Questions of discipline, and questions of investigation relating to the individual concerned, will be dealt with by the department.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This Minister claimed in this House that she got an apology. I am asking her where the explanation was that went with the apology. It is a pretty clear question. I have now asked it twice, and I am raising a point of order about it. I want to know why the apology was not accompanied by an explanation. That is pretty clear.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did give a reason. She said that she had had an apology by phone—I think she said that it was a profuse apology by phone—that she accepted that apology, but that that did not in any way interfere with the process of the inquiry. That answer certainly addressed the question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: It addresses the question of the apology, but I am not asking about that. That is known to be a fact. I want to know where the explanation was that usually accompanies an apology—for example: “I was late because I missed the train.” That is pretty clear, but she is saying that she got an apology and everything else will go to the inquiry. The Minister has it in her province and knowledge to tell us whether there was an explanation from Mr Smith.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is a debating matter.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I ask the Minister again: was there an explanation accompanying Ian Smith’s apology; if not, why did she accept the apology, and if there was, what was the explanation?

No, there was no explanation accompanying the apology. He was profuse in his apology to me. It was offered in a personal way and accepted in a personal way. It has nothing to do with the investigation into the matters, and there are others to whom he is accountable.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have asked three questions on this specific issue of whether there was an accompanying explanation. Now, the Minister prefers to answer it—

I said “No”.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: The Minister could have answered it the first time, and told me there was no explanation with the apology. I ask why she will get away with that.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did address both the previous questions. She can answer in any way she wishes. I do not judge the merit of the answer.

Prostitution Law Review Committee—Establishment

5. LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) to the Minister of Justice: What progress, if any, has been made in establishing the Prostitution Law Review Committee, and when does he expect it will carry out its responsibility to “assess the number of persons working as sex workers in New Zealand”?

, on behalf of the Minister of Justice: The Minister has written to those Ministers who are required by the Act to nominate people for the Prostitution Law Review Committee to seek a meeting as a first step towards establishing the committee. The committee will carry out its responsibility to assess the number of persons working as sex workers in New Zealand as soon as practicable after it is established. To assist with this task, the Ministry of Justice is currently doing some preliminary work in looking at how this research could be carried out.

💬 Larry Baldock: In the light of the comments by the Police Association president, Greg O’Connor, in today’s Dominion Post, that gangs are now planning to move into prostitution more quickly than he first thought, will the Minister also establish a full inquiry into the involvement of organised crime in prostitution at the present time, so that the effects of the new Act in that regard are able to be measured?

I will certainly ask the Minister of Justice to take up the matter that has been alluded to in the newspaper, but it would be premature to initiate an inquiry if there has been no established problem at this stage.

💬 Martin Gallagher: Could the Minister remind the Parliament of the membership that this Parliament decided the Prostitution Law Review Committee should have?

Parliament decided that the Prostitution Law Review Committee should comprise 11 members to be appointed by the Minister of Justice. The members are to be nominated by the Minister of Justice, Minister of Police, Minister of Health, Minister of Commerce, Minister of Women’s Affairs, Minister of Youth Affairs, and Minister of Local Government, and by the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective. Nominations will be sought following my meeting with Ministers shortly.

💬 Sue Kedgley: Now that prostitution has been decriminalised, and the review committee has been set up, will it be easier to not only assess the number of persons who are working as sex workers in New Zealand, but also to assist them to leave the profession if they so choose?

Having looked at the terms of reference for the committee, I do not see that it is the committee’s responsibility to assist workers to leave the profession. It certainly should be easier to identify how many people are working in the profession.

💬 Larry Baldock: Does the Minister accept that the Prostitution Law Review Committee faces a credibility problem, when all the nominations for appointment to it are made by Ministers who voted for the legislation, and who would therefore have a potential interest in ensuring that the committee’s final report reflected favourably on the law change; if so, will he allow other parties in the House to make recommendations on appointments to ensure that the review committee is balanced in its assessments?

If that member wishes to communicate his views on the matter to the Minister of Justice, I am sure the Minister would listen to any recommendations he might make.

💬 Larry Baldock: Noting that we do not currently have accurate assessments on the sex industry in New Zealand, does the Minister accept that the information on prostitution supplied to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women by the Government last October—namely that “the incidence of trafficking of women appears to have diminished in recent years”—was potentially misleading in the absence of an accurate profile of the sex industry?

I would not like to comment on that particular assertion without any thorough analysis.

Algerian Suspected Terrorist—Inquiry

6. Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Immigration: Will she support a State Services Commission inquiry or a commission of inquiry into allegations that officials of the New Zealand Immigration Service agreed to “lie in unison” and that they withheld documents being sought by the Ombudsman under the Official Information Act 1982 in relation to the Zaoui case; if not, why not?

I do not consider it is necessary to determine whether there should be any form of inquiry before the Secretary of Labour has reported on the results of his investigations. I note that the State Services Commissioner has been kept fully informed, and the Secretary of Labour has said publicly that his findings will be made public.

💬 Hon Murray McCully: Given that these events involve the Minister, and that they commenced in her own office, what confidence can the public have in an in-house inquiry conducted by someone who reports to her and to her Cabinet colleagues, and who depends upon her and her Cabinet colleagues both for his bonus and for reappointment to his job?

As the State Services Commissioner said in a letter to the Hon Murray McCully yesterday, there is no risk or perception of conflict of interest for him personally, as these events pre-date his appointment as chief executive. I am not ruling out any further inquiries beyond these investigations, but I would like the investigations to be completed, and for that report to be publicly released.

💬 Hon Murray McCully: Is the Minister seriously asking the House to believe that she expects the Secretary of Labour to independently and authoritatively investigate an affair to which she herself says she is a party, if there has been some wrongdoing, and to report that independently and authoritatively to Cabinet?

Yes, I have full confidence in the Secretary of Labour to conduct an investigation, to make a report, and to release it publicly. I do not believe that people should pre-judge the outcome of that investigation.

💬 Hon Murray McCully: Does the Minister understand that if she is going to insist that this should be the only investigation to take place at this stage into a matter that she has told the House today she is a party to—and must, therefore, be a party to any wrongdoing that has been done—it is going to be seen by the public to be nothing more than a cover-up, unless she allows a party that is independent and authoritative to carry it out?

Only one person is asserting that it would be a cover-up. A brand-new Secretary of Labour has offered to expand the investigation beyond the matters that I asked the general manager of the Immigration Service to look at. Some serious issues have been raised and I want to see answers to them. There are questions about whether information the Ombudsman requested was released. It is clear that that member had the information before an application was made to the Ombudsman for the review of a decision, and how he came upon that information might be of use to the investigation.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister not understand that the Immigration Service is part of the Department of Labour, the chief executive of which is now to conduct an in-house inquiry; that the suggested lying and deceit was widespread, from Mr Ian Smith’s comments; and why will she not therefore give us an inquiry with terms of reference that the public can have confidence in, not a whitewash in-house job that she has put up?

I just want to refer the House to the media release that came out from the chief executive of the Department of Labour yesterday. He stated very clearly he was concerned that the allegations as reported, if left unchallenged, could undermine confidence in the integrity of his department and the wider public service. He wants to ensure that the matter is dealt with openly and promptly to remove any public doubt about what happened, and deal with any outstanding issues. The matter will be made public, the results of the investigation will be made public, and I have not ruled out any additional inquiries after that report has been released.

💬 Hon Murray McCully: Does the Minister understand that an allegation that there has been an agreement to “lie in unison” is at the absolute outer end of the range of serious misconduct for public servants; and since she has told the House today that if there has been such misconduct, she must have been a party to it, does she not accept that any inquiry that will have credibility with the public must take place on the part of someone who does not report to her directly or to her Cabinet colleagues?

I do not want to predetermine the outcome of an investigation, nor do I want us to have a situation where I am in fact predetermining whether there will be an inquiry following the results of the investigation. There may well have to be an inquiry as a result of the matters of the investigation. I have an open mind, but I do not want that member to get away with trying to reinterpret what I said in the House today to make it sound as if I have been party to something that I have not been party to. The point I have made absolutely clear to this House—which I will make more than once and will make anywhere in this country and stand by it—is the point made in the commentary in the media log that said others had broken this so-called agreement. I was the only person who spoke on the matter, from any Government agency. I was not a party to any agreement; there was no agreement to lie.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table important legislation that states that it is an offence to wilfully make any false statement or to mislead or attempt to mislead an ombudsman or any other person in the exercise of his or her powers under that Act, namely, the Ombudsmen Act.

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

Television New Zealand—Dividend

7. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Broadcasting: Is the Government seeking a dividend from Television New Zealand Ltd this year, and will it waive any requirement for a dividend, to help Television New Zealand Ltd to fulfil its charter obligations for comprehensive, impartial, and in-depth news and current affairs?

The Government expects some dividend from Television New Zealand this year. The board of Television New Zealand is currently considering its dividend policy and the likely level of dividend to be paid, in the course of finalising its statement of intent for the 3 financial years beginning 1 July 2003. This will also cover how it intends to fulfil its charter obligations. I have not been advised of the board’s decision regarding this matter, as yet.

💬 Sue Kedgley: How can Television New Zealand possibly deliver on its charter obligation to provide comprehensive and in-depth coverage of news and current affairs when it has just axed its flagship investigative programme, Assignment, is sacking an estimated 14 current affairs staff, and is cutting up to 10 percent of its news and current affairs budget; and is that the sort of quality programming the Minister expected when he introduced the charter?

Of course the issues raised by the member are issues for management, and it has made that very clear. But what is also clear is that there is a charter, and the organisation will be held accountable for its implementation.

💬 Mark Peck: How much funding is the Government providing to assist with the implementation of the charter, and what are the accountability arrangements?

We provided $12 million last year and $15 million this year, increasing to $17 million by 2005-06—a total of $60 million over 4 years. The charter funding is monitored through a memorandum of understanding between TVNZ and the Minister. The expenditure is reported to the Minister on a quarterly basis and is also required to be reported in the company’s annual report.

💬 Katherine Rich: After 4 years why has the Government failed to implement Labour’s 1999 broadcasting policy, which stated: “Labour believes priority for Television New Zealand should be on providing a quality service rather than providing a dividend to Government.”, and “Labour will work towards allowing TVNZ to retain a greater proportion of potential dividends.”? After 4 years is this not a snail’s pace?

It cannot be at a snail’s pace; it has all happened.

💬 Sue Kedgley: Can the Minister confirm that there is no pressure on TVNZ coming from the Government or the Broadcasting Commission board to make budget cuts to return a dividend; if so, does he have any idea why management is seeking to make an extraordinary 10 percent cut in the current affairs and news budget at the very time when it is expecting to receive record advertising income, topping $300 million, and when it has just received a $12 million grant from the Government?

Yes, I can reassure the House that there has been absolutely no political involvement in terms of decisions made here. They are, as the organisation itself has said, strictly management decisions. The member will know that television organisations go through phases where they change their programming. In this case TVNZ is looking at its news and current affairs. Yes, it is doing extraordinarily well right now from its advertising revenue, but I point out that not one dollar that goes to the organisation for its charter obligations goes into news and current affairs. In fact, the agreement is that it should not and will not.

💬 Sue Kedgley: Can the Minister assure the House that the budget cuts that management is seeking to make in TVNZ are not driven in any way by the need to pay an estimated $20 million tax liability for TVNZ as a result of the Government’s decision to split off the transmission subsidiary BCL from TVNZ; if not, why not?

Yes, I can give the member that absolute assurance.

Business Growth Fund—Grants

8. RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) to the Minister for Economic Development: On what date did Industry New Zealand learn which suppliers were to receive the $75,000 Business Growth fund grant paid to The Warehouse last year, and what checks were done of these suppliers against the Business Growth fund criteria?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Minister has advised me that his answer will be a little longer than usual.

A list of 15 companies was originally proposed when Industry New Zealand approved a grant to suppliers of The Warehouse to become more efficient and therefore better suppliers through an Enviro-Mark certification, which is an environmental qualification administered by Landcare Research New Zealand. Industry New Zealand widened the group of companies to be considered, to ensure that the most appropriate companies were funded following the initial grant approval. Three agencies were involved in the selection process—Landcare Research New Zealand, The Warehouse Ltd, and Industry New Zealand. The final group of 10 companies was confirmed on 3 April 2003.

Before the group of 10 companies was confirmed, Industry New Zealand assessed whether they met the Business Growth fund criteria. As a group the companies met the eligibility criteria as Industry New Zealand interpreted them. A subsequent Auditor-General’s office opinion is that Industry New Zealand’s original interpretation was inconsistent with the criteria agreed by Cabinet. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise advises that it has improved its processes to address all issues of concern raised by the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General’s office stated in its report to Trade and Enterprise New Zealand: “It is satisfied that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise has responded appropriately and in a proactive manner to the issues raised by the Auditor-General’s review.”

💬 Rodney Hide: In the light of the Minister’s answer that the list was not finalised until this year, how could he as Minister assure the House on 7 November that the suppliers “all met the business growth criteria”, when the final list of suppliers had not been finalised, and who is responsible for this grant being falsely awarded, as the Auditor-General has now shown?

The policy requirements that Industry New Zealand then followed were set by Cabinet, of course. However, the operational decisions, as the member undoubtedly knows, are carried out by the staff and board of Industry New Zealand. In this case the board and the management determined that in principle this application was acceptable for this Business Grant award, but in practice they needed to be sure that each of the companies qualified. In their view there was flexibility for them to make that decision. The Auditor-General has indicated that there was not, and therefore the processes have been changed. I point out to the member that when one is proactive in assisting the business community of New Zealand to develop, there will be flexibility, and risks will be taken. This Government is prepared to help business in New Zealand rather than criticise it like the ACT party.

💬 Hon Matt Robson: Is the Minister concerned by this issue being raised?

No, I welcome the question from the Opposition. All public funding should of course be accountable to this Parliament. However, this coalition remains committed to New Zealand’s economic development and is prepared to try new ways of working with New Zealand business people, even if it entails some element of risk. The question from the ACT party again highlights the commitment of this coalition to create jobs, stronger regional and local communities, and sustainable business development. I wish the Opposition would wake up and smell the coffee about some of that.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The answer to the first question was long. That answer was just a little too long, and we had better not have any more of that length.

💬 John Key: Has The Warehouse now repaid the $21,090.42 that has already been paid out of the $75,000 grant, and who is repaying the money—The Warehouse or its suppliers?

The Warehouse has been invoiced for the money, and I am quite sure its cash flow will be appropriately large enough to qualify it to pay. The Warehouse has paid the money; it is so committed to this environmental act that it is prepared to fund the companies even though perfectly reasonably entitled to apply for the grant on behalf of the supplier companies.

H V Ross Robertson: How many grants were made by Industry New Zealand?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is rather wide of the original question, but the Minister can comment briefly.

Very briefly, up to the end of June this year there have been 340 Business Growth grants, 850 Enterprise Awards grants, and a number of other local and regional grants. This is one of them, and I am proud of every single one that has helped the industries in regions of New Zealand develop in the way they have over the last 3 to 4 years.

💬 Gerrard Eckhoff: Is the Enviro-Mark certification, which the funding was for, still proceeding in the absence of the grant, and does the Minister stand by his claim in question for written answer No. 12296 lodged in 2002 that savings to the 12 supplier companies of approximately $350,000 per annum are expected, and why did he ever think that a project returning 233 percent a year needed taxpayer help?

Yes, and yes, and because I stand for the development of New Zealand, which the ACT party has never stood for.

💬 Rod Donald: Has the Ministry of Economic Development investigated how many manufacturing jobs The Warehouse has destroyed because it imports hundreds of millions of dollars of products from sweatshop economies that used to be made in New Zealand by New Zealand manufacturers and New Zealand workers, and what is the Government doing to promote public loyalty to New Zealand businesses so that jobs can be saved, indeed created, in our economy, so that our massive trade deficit—$2.8 billion for the year to June—can be reduced?

I have responsibility for New Zealand economic development, not for the rest of the world—[Interruption] My colleagues are telling me that that will come soon! The reality is, of course, the Ministry of Economic Development has not carried that out, but it has not carried out a study either of how a lot of ordinary New Zealand families have benefited from low prices of commodities and products that they buy from The Warehouse. But the overall growth of New Zealand seems to be in good heart, to me. We have the lowest unemployment levels in living memory, and the country is doing better than most of its trading partners. We must be doing something right on this side of the House to have achieved those record developments.

💬 Deborah Coddington: Who, or what, were the two suppliers that the Auditor-General found did not meet the Business Growth fund criteria, and what is their annual turnover?

I do not have the names of the two companies. If the member wants to have them I will ask Industry New Zealand whether there is any confidentiality about their names.

💬 Rodney Hide: When Industry New Zealand senior adviser Mr Richard White, the Minister himself, and the Industry New Zealand Chief Executive Officer, Mr Neil McKay, told in turn, the New Zealand Herald, Parliament, and the Commerce Committee that “the suppliers all met the funding criteria”, were they making flippant comments or were they lying in unison?

I resent the implication that any of those people, including myself, was lying to anyone. The reality is that Industry New Zealand at the time thought that if collectively the group of companies met the criteria, that would be sufficient for the award. There were, in fact, two companies out of the 10 that did not, and that, in the view of the Auditor-General, has eliminated qualification for the award. I think it was an honest and reasonable mistake for Industry New Zealand to make at the time. The processes have been changed because of the Auditor-General’s report. Again, members should understand that when a country is moving towards a proactive stance in terms of industry and business development, we are entitled to try some new things, and this is one of them—and most of them are working.

💬 Rodney Hide: I seek leave of the House to table the Auditor-General’s report showing that the Business Growth fund was out of order.

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

Endangered Species—Conservation

9. GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Conservation: Have there been any significant developments in threatened species conservation?

Yes. A good example is the recovery of kōkako to a point where new populations are being established. Last week five kōkako were released into Wairarapa’s Mount Bruce forest. They had been transferred from a thriving King Country population, where numbers had been boosted by successful pest control.

💬 Georgina Beyer: What is being done to avoid further losses of kiwi at Okarito Forest?

Okarito Forest is being managed as a kiwi sanctuary. My department has developed a strategy to ensure that the brown kiwi population there will increase this year. Sufficient eggs will be taken from the wild and hatched, and the birds will be held in predator-safe environments until they can be returned as juveniles that are large enough to fight off predators.

💬 Metiria Turei: What are the main threats to kōkako outside these highly protected areas, and what prospect does he see of restoring the dawn chorus to much larger areas of the conservation estate and to private land?

Stoats remain the main problem attacking kōkako. We are continuing to try to eradicate this pest as best we can.

Agricultural Sector—Confidence

10. Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) to the Minister of Agriculture: Given that key factors dampening confidence in the agricultural sector this year, including the exchange rate, drought, and Sars, have all developed favourably over the last month, does he accept that the Government’s proposed livestock greenhouse gas emissions research levy is responsible for the deterioration in farmer confidence as reported in the latest National Bank Business Outlook Survey?

No. Over the last few months, recorded confidence in the agricultural sector has continued to fluctuate around very low levels, due principally to exchange rate and commodity price factors. The July figure was worse than those of June and April but better than those of May and March. Of course, we have to take account of the fact that they are relatively small samples, and some of the variation may simply be sampling error.

💬 Hon David Carter: Is the Minister of Agriculture aware of the statement made in the House on 23 April 1981 by the current Minister of Finance, Dr Cullen, when he said: “I am proud of the fact that my secondary education was not paid for by the taxpayers of New Zealand but by the farmers of Canterbury and Hawke’s Bay. I ripped them off for 5 years then, and I shall get stuck into them again in the next few years,”; and is the Minister of Agriculture also keen to get stuck into New Zealand farmers, whom he now calls “whingers”?

Yes, the Minister of Agriculture is aware of that comment, which has been rather frequently quoted over the last 22 years. I think that particular comment shows that greenhouse gas emissions are not confined to sheep and cattle.

💬 Janet Mackey: What does the National Bank business confidence survey say about profit expectations for the agricultural sector?

While expectations are still for a fall in profits, the figures improved from May through to June, and through to July, so there are some signs in the survey of recovery in that sector.

R Doug Woolerton: Why does the Government, through its Ministers, feel it necessary to denigrate farmers?

The Government does not feel it necessary to denigrate farmers. The Government takes the view that a research levy of $8 million on a multibillion dollar industry is not an unfair contribution to solving more than 50 percent of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions.

💬 Hon David Carter: Given the Minister’s response to Mr Woolerton, will the Minister of Agriculture therefore attend the Federated Farmers meeting in his electorate in Timaru tomorrow; if not, will any of his 51 parliamentary colleagues deputise for him?

I do not have the information to answer that. I do not think the Minister is able to attend the meeting in Timaru tomorrow. I do not know of any other member going to Timaru, although the Minister of Finance is going to Timaru and Oamaru in the near future.

Fines—Debt Collection

11. LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) to the Minister for Courts: What progress has been made in reducing the level of overdue fines and reparations?

Initiatives by this Government have led to a reduction in the level of overdue unpaid fines from $334 million as of June 2002 to $306 million as of June 2003. This is the first year that the total of overdue unpaid fines has gone down, and the best year ever in terms of the amount collected. During that period, the value of unpaid reparations has also reduced dramatically from $30.6 million as of June 2002 to $22 million as of 30 June. That is a reduction of $8.9 million, or a 28 percent reduction. That reflects this Government’s commitment to helping the victims of crime.

💬 Lynne Pillay: Why is the total for overdue fines reported in the 2002 annual report of the Department for Courts different from the figure of $334 million that the Minister has just quoted?

In the department’s 2002 annual report the total overdue fines figure was a subset of the total unpaid fines figure, and was shown at $288 million. That figure was an error, because of a mismatch of data in the conversion from the Wanganui computer to the new collection system. The new system provides much more robust figures, and the correct figure for overdue fines for 2001-02 is $334 million.

💬 Murray Smith: How much is outstanding in overdue reparation arising from agreements reached at family group conferences, and what is the Government doing to address the recovery of those amounts?

I cannot give the member an off-the-cuff figure immediately, but I will get it for him. However, I can assure him that everything is being done to collect reparations. It is a priority of this Government.

💬 Ron Mark: Has the Minister seen reports that in the Whangarei court a judge ordered the writing-off of $10,000 worth of fines for an individual who had 40 convictions, that in Hastings a judge ordered the write-off of $18,000 worth of fines for a man who had 62 traffic infringements, and that a 19-year-old had $54,000 worth of fines remitted; if he has, has he expressed concern to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Police about their undermining, as is happening, the credibility of fines as a sentencing option, and public regard for the administration of justice and respect for the law—taken out of his book—a principle that the Minister’s ministry is committed to protecting?

It would be wrong of me to comment on the individual judges’ decisions in those cases. Bu I can assure the member that the Department for Courts and this Government take this issue very seriously, and we are putting in a tremendous amount of extra resource to ensure that fines are paid promptly and on time. We are giving as many avenues as possible for individuals to pay their fines promptly.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are two parts to my question. One is whether the Minister has seen reports. The second part of my question is what representations he has made to the Minister of Police and the Minister of Justice. Although I appreciate having greater knowledge of what he is doing, he did not address those two very specific points at all.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did, I thought.

💬 Murray Smith: Given that the Government does not know how much is outstanding from family group conference reparation agreements, will the Minister admit that the progress in reducing the level of overdue reparations just trumpeted by him is a totally hollow boast?

Certainly not! This is the first time that outstanding reparations owed to victims of crime have gone down, and gone down by $8 million. I would have thought that that member would say: “Congratulations! Well done! Good job!”.

Cochlear Implant Surgery—Waiting Times

12. Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) to the Minister of Health: Why are New Zealand patients waiting up to 3 years for cochlear implant surgery to correct profound deafness, even after it is medically approved; and how does this fit with the Government’s strategy that all patients should receive surgery within 6 months?

First, we have never said that all patients should receive surgery within 6 months. At the very minimum, they would have to be assessed as needing it. With regard to the cochlear implant situation, there is growing demand for cochlear implants, and a prioritisation system is used to establish access to those services. Children tend to benefit most from cochlear implants, and treatment for them invariably does occur within those 6 months.

💬 Dr Lynda Scott: Why are so few cochlear implants publicly funded in New Zealand, with only 25 last year, when this intervention has been shown to be the third most cost-effective, high-tech intervention in medicine, letting children develop normal language, keeping adults in work, and keeping older people independent in the community, although nobody over 65 is funded for it; and is this just another example of New Zealanders falling far behind the better access that Australians have to health care?

I do agree that there are considerable benefits from cochlear implants for some people. That is one of the reasons that we instigated a review of the cochlear implant programme. That review will be completed by September this year. It will look at future provision of a quality service, and that provision will include the waiting times for both children and adults.

💬 Nanaia Mahuta: In the meantime, can the Minister explain what the Government will do to improve cochlear implant services?

I am delighted that this weekend I am opening the South Island cochlear implant programme at the Van Asch Deaf Education Centre in Christchurch. Our Government has put $900,000 of funding into setting up and running the programme so that people from the South Island requiring cochlear implant services no longer need to travel to Auckland.

💬 Heather Roy: Can the Minister confirm that district health boards are now paying, in total, around $120 million a year just in interest on the capital injections they are having to spend on health services like cochlear implant surgery, and how is this strategy of borrowing to fund operations sustainable?

No, I am not able to confirm those specific figures.