Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

Just last week I was privileged to open a coastal walkway at Milford Sound. It provides a new opportunity for the 450,000 tourists who visit Milford Sound annually. This is an excellent example of how the tourism industry can work with my department to provide benefits for both conservation and the economy.

💬 David Parker: What role did the tourism industry play in the development of this walkway?

The tourism industry, through the Milford Sound Development Authority, helped to identify the need for land-based attractions at Milford Sound. It also helped to plan the walkway, and provided approximately half the funding required to build it. It worked in partnership with the Department of Conservation, the Ministry of Tourism, and Ngāi Tahu.

💬 Shane Ardern: In the light of the Minister’s answer to the primary question, can he inform the House whether Department of Conservation staff chopping up rimu on Stewart Island, or clear-felling timber in other parts of New Zealand, is that new, environmentally sensitive approach?

As far as Stewart Island is concerned, my department has already apologised to the landowner concerned. People make mistakes. But I can say that the Department of Conservation engages very positively with organisations and individuals throughout New Zealand.

💬 Mike Ward: How is the privatisation of 35 kilometres of land adjacent to Lake Wanaka consistent with both the provision of environmentally sensitive tourism opportunities on conservation land and the Government’s review of public access?

I am not responsible for final decisions on tenure review. The tenure review proposals for that property are currently undergoing public consultation.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: In recognition of the importance of tourism in Milford, does the Minister support the proposal, which will have a low environmental impact and is culturally sensitive and energy efficient, of Ngāi Tahu and Skyline Enterprises to build a gondola system through the Greenstone Valley, linking Glenorchy with Milford and thereby saving the 12-hour day-trip from Queenstown to Milford?

Applications for tourism developments on the conservation estate go through a rigorous statutory process that includes an assessment of the environmental effects and public consultation. All cases rest on their merits.

Government Revenue—Roads

8. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: What is the total amount collected annually by central government from all taxes, duties, licence fees, and levies for the purposes of road construction, maintenance, and road safety?

I am advised that the total in the categories referred to is $1,481 million, GST exclusive, for the year ended 30 June. There were $58 million of GST-inclusive refunds.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: How is it that the Minister gave me an answer in the House 4 weeks ago in which he agreed that the real figure was $2,223 million, not the figure he has just given?

The question the member asked on this occasion was for the purpose of road construction, maintenance, and road safety. The number I have been given at this point for our total revenue is $1,481 million, GST exclusive.

💬 John Key: Noting the Government’s intention to release its Auckland roading solutions on 12 December, is the Government intending to sanction a further fuel-tax increase either regionally or nationally; if it is, what is the logic behind that decision, given the surpluses the Government currently enjoys?

Funding for Auckland’s transport strategy will require a commitment to funding it over at least a 10-year period, and probably longer. Perhaps at some time during that period there might be a National-led Government and, therefore, a great improbability of surpluses.

💬 John Key: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know the Minister was thinking up his one-liner about a National Government, but I wonder whether he could answer the question, which was not about the 10-year funding period but about whether the Government intends, on 12 December, to raise fuel taxes above their current level in order to fix Auckland’s roads. That was the question.

The question was why that would be considered in the light of current surpluses, and the answer is that we are committed to a long-term funding programme.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I ask the Minister again whether he will admit to the fact that this Government collected $2,223 million—

From motorists.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, from motorists—for the ostensible purpose, originally given in all those cases, of building roads and for road maintenance and road safety; if that is the case, what on earth is he doing seeking to justify a petrol-tax rise of 5c per litre to fund a $400 million expenditure to fix Auckland’s traffic congestion problems, as reported in the Dominion Post on Thursday, December 4, when he is currently sitting on an operating surplus of $1.96 billion and an operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes surplus of $5.58 billion?

Firstly, we are not sitting on a surplus of $5.58 billion. That was the surplus last year, and, surprisingly enough, we do not leave it sitting in my private piggy bank, doing nothing with it in the meantime. The actual cash surplus was used to pay off debt last year. That money has gone. Secondly, as I have explained to the member on many occasions, the cost of capital associated with roading is not currently covered out of excise duties, whereas on rail, for example, the cost of capital is covered by the current operators. Thirdly, there are many other costs associated with roading that are not included in matters such as road construction, road maintenance, and road safety.

💬 Larry Baldock: Can the Minister confirm that if the Government decides to reduce the fuel-tax diversion—as indicated by his answer to my question yesterday—by even as much as 2.2c per litre, it would be a greater reduction than that accomplished by Winston Peters when he was Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister in 1998?

Yes, I can confirm that, and by sheer chance, having looked up the member’s maiden speech, I have found that the largest grab ever in New Zealand’s history for the consolidated account occurred in Sir Robert Muldoon’s first mini-Budget, when he diverted the entire revenue from motor vehicles into the consolidated account.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the 1998 Budget, which sets out very clearly that for the first time in decades, a Minister of Finance or Treasurer in this country sought to redress that anomaly. Had we remained in Government for 10 years, there would have been a dramatic change and difference in the infrastructural investment on roads in this country. Mr Baldock should get his facts right.

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

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would not want to accuse the Minister of Finance of misleading the House, but in terms of 1998 dollars, 2.2c per litre is far less than 2.1c—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, no. The member may choose to use that as a debating point; it is not a point of order.

💬 Peter Brown: But he is giving the wrong information—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister explain why $2,223 million in revenue was collected from all sources for the purposes I have outlined in respect of road construction, maintenance, and safety in the last financial year, when only $1.4 billion made it into the National Roads Fund; and can he tell us why, when there is an $823 million shortfall that is not being used for the purpose of road construction in Auckland, he is just passing the buck again to motorists?

As I said, there are issues relating to the cost of capital for the roading system, and there are environmental and other costs associated with roading. The present excise duty does not cover the full cost of the roading system.

💬 Peter Brown: When will the Minister produce the economic report that will justify diverting 18.5c per litre of petrol into the Crown account, which he has promised for a long time: before the 12 December package is announced, or afterwards so that the motorist is conned again?

I am advised—it is not my responsibility—that such a report in relation to costs will be produced next year. Auckland is demanding much faster answers than that.

💬 Peter Brown: Noting that answer, is it not true that the best part of $1 million has been spent already on this report, and does the Minister think it is satisfactory that we are waiting months for such an overdue report, which will come out after the Government has introduced the legislation?

I cannot confirm that figure. I do not have any information in front of me in relation to the costs of what has been done. I know that a great deal of work was done on road costs in the 1990s. Much of that has always been around the issue of generating more income to improve our roading system over the long term.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Minister of Finance allowing himself to become a victim of a lie—which is that motorists are not already paying sufficiently for all the projects we may have in mind for the next 10 years—and is putting up an argument that is a clear case of creative accounting, when he talks about the cost of capital? Is it not true that $823 million is currently not spent for the purpose it is collected, and why is he taxing the motorist one more time?

No. The cost of capital is not an aspect of creative accounting; it is fundamental.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is so. It’s just debt servicing.

Oh well, it is no wonder New Zealand First has a rather strange position on economic policy, with the cost of capital being regarded as an aspect of creative accounting! I will try to explain this to the member again: there are cost-of-capital elements, and there are other costs associated with roading. My authority for that is no less than the Automobile Association and the road transport federation, which, just before the last election—undoubtedly not in collusion with any party in this House—estimated that if we were to cover the full cost of roading, we would have to double the excise duty.

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Noting that that answer was somewhat frivolous, I will be equally frivolous: can we have George Fairbairn here, and we will really get the facts of the Government’s policy?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, that is not a point of order, and the member knows it.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is it that Transfund New Zealand is currently sitting on $225 million in its bank account, yet people will shortly be forced to pay another 5c per litre of petrol to fix Auckland’s congestion problems; is that not plain daylight robbery, so that the Government can finance some of its other whacko projects?

I am sure some of that increased tax will be paid at night-time, as well. But passing beyond that, it is equally clear that if there is any change in excise duty, only the proportion that is due to Auckland in terms of its population will go to Auckland. The rest will go to the rest of the country, and the Auckland share will be matched by the Government.

Meridian Energy Ltd—Project Aqua

9. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister for the Environment: Does she stand by her reported statement that the Resource Management Act 1991 is a “beautifully written, beautifully balanced piece of legislation”; if so, why is special legislation required for Government-owned Meridian Energy Limited’s Project Aqua to proceed?

Yes, I do stand by that comment, but the member omitted the rest of that wonderful quote, which was that the Resource Management Act had to be made to work. The special Waitaki legislation is necessary, because, without a regional water plan, the Resource Management Act alone cannot balance the competing applications. We want to ensure that a fair and open process produces the best decisions for Waitaki water without favouring any applicant—as wrongly presumed in the member’s question.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the Minister for the Environment seriously suggesting to the House and the people of New Zealand that we would not have this resource management bill in her name if it were not for Project Aqua?

Without a water allocation plan, Project Aqua and the large irrigation requests—if they were all granted—would mean that no water would be left in the Waitaki.

💬 Nanaia Mahuta: What will be the effect of the water allocation framework to be drawn up by the Waitaki Catchment Board under the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill?

The water allocation framework will become operative as if it were a regional water plan under the Resource Management Act, and will guide the decisions about specific applications for water. Of course, we would not need to legislate for this if the National Government had not abandoned local government during the 1990s, leaving many local authorities without the capacity to draw up regional water plans themselves.

💬 Jeanette Fitzsimons: Would the Minister agree that after 12 years of the Resource Management Act, if there is any regional council that does not have a catchment management plan and a water allocation plan for a major river system, then it is negligent and failing in its duty; and would the Minister consider amending the Resource Management Act to require catchment plans and water allocation plans for the water resources controlled by regional councils?

I am loath to condemn regional and local councils for the absence of plans, because plans are also required for air quality, soil quality, as well as water quality, and—because they were left without the resources—some of them did not get around to that. An amount of persuasion has gone on with the councils. I do not want to pass that into legislation because I would much rather give a hand to enable different plans for different catchments.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Can the Minister for the Environment explain to the House why the re-establishment of a separate Waitaki catchment commission to allocate water is not just turning the clock back 15 years, and is an admission that the Resource Management Act has failed miserably—even if, in her eyes, it is a “beautifully written, beautifully balanced piece of legislation”?

The bill uses the Resource Management Act’s very good principles and very good procedures for the most part. The fact that there was an absence of a water allocation plan meant that it was “first come, first decision”. When there are 66 applications, a “first in, first served” policy does not mean that the best use is achieved.

💬 Larry Baldock: In light of the ongoing concern and constant criticism expressed by interest groups and Opposition parties about delays the Resource Management Act causes for major projects, is the Minister surprised by criticism of her most recent effort to address such problems by those very same groups, including, most notably, the National and ACT parties?

The Resource Management Act comes in for a lot of criticism from a whole range of people, whether it be non-governmental organisations or business concerns. As such, it is always under constant review.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why has this Minister steadfastly refused to make substantial amendments to the Resource Management Act when asked to do so by the forestry industry, the agricultural sector, the energy sector, and the transport sector, but, hello, hello, when it is the Government’s own company, she will put a special bill through just to help it out; and how is that any different from the special Clyde Dam legislation that was passed in 1983?

There is an absolute difference in relation to the Clyde Dam legislation. The Clyde Dam legislation was about fast-tracking—this is not. That legislation was about reversing local decisions. [Interruption] Let me say again that that legislation was about reversing local decisions. [Interruption] This is about establishing a fair and considered process to make some difficult decisions.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table a speech made by Dr Michael Cullen in 1983, in which he talks about constitutional outrage and abuse of process, and in which he states that the people of Otago should decide how their water resources are used rather than a committee appointed—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member knows he went on too long.

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

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that you might say that the barracking came from this side of the House, but not all of us were barracking. Some of us were actually trying to listen. I would really like the Minister to give the answer again so that we can hear it.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I heard an amount of interjection, but I managed to hear the answer from this part of the House.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier you ruled that I was not to interject on a questioner ever again.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, on the asking of a question, not an answer.

💬 Rodney Hide: That is right. So I have sat here, as you know, a model MP—and it has been very difficult. But I could not help but observe that while Dr Nick Smith was raising a point of order, given that you have always, and quite correctly, demanded absolute silence, the Government whip, David Benson-Pope, interjected on him. The Minister, Marian Hobbs—and she is nodding her head, indicating that she did—interjected on him, but somehow when they do it on a point of order, it is OK.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, let me say that it was a member of the National Party who interjected while the member was discussing that point of order. I usually tend to stand by that rule, but I am not going to be absolutely rigid every single moment of the day.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to take you back to your earlier ruling. I am sitting considerably closer to the Minister than Mr Prebble, who raised the point of order, and a lot closer than you are, and I could not hear the answer that was given. I suggest that it was perhaps a little unfair of you to rule that from your distance you could hear it, whereas those of us in this sector of the House could not. Maybe the Minister should be required to repeat it.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I hope the Minister could give us a brief summary of her answer. I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that it should be that, and that there should be no interjection—otherwise, we invite barracking, and members delay question time by then asking for the answers to be repeated.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I think the point is well made. There was too much interjection. However, I thought the Minister was coping with it. I will now ask the Minister to give—and I want silence—a very brief summary of her answer.

As I recall the question, it was that this bill was being compared with the Clyde Dam legislation. This bill, which we have before us this week, will not be about fast-tracking any proposals. Nor is it about reversing local decisions, as it was in the Clyde Dam example. It is about establishing a fair and considered process to make some very difficult decisions.

Statistics New Zealand—Māori Communities

10. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Statistics: What is Statistics New Zealand doing to raise awareness and extend the use of official statistics in Maori communities?

Statistics New Zealand has secured funding to retain six kaitakawaenga, who were appointed to work with Māori communities during the 2001 census. Their role is to raise awareness and extend the use of official statistics in Māori communities. Statistics New Zealand plays a vital role in informing social, political, economic, and business decision-making in this country, and we are proud to be a Government that is taking Statistics New Zealand seriously after years of neglect by those members opposite.

💬 Moana Mackey: What is Statistics New Zealand doing to improve the availability of official statistics about Māori businesses?

Currently, no systematic official statistics about Māori business activity are available. As a means of improving the situation, Statistics New Zealand, in cooperation with Te Puni Kōkiri, is currently testing strategies for identifying Māori businesses, so that a systematic range of statistics can be compiled from existing data sources. The Government believes that these statistics are needed to understand and enhance the contribution of commercial activities. [Interruption] That is right, and I might add that this Government is supporting Statistics New Zealand in such projects by providing it with an additional—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is sufficient.

Trans-Tasman Therapeutic Products Agency—Bilateral Treaty

11. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Health: Has the Government made a decision to include the regulation of complementary medicines and dietary supplements in the proposed trans-Tasman therapeutic products agency, and when does it expect to sign a bilateral treaty between the Australian and New Zealand Governments establishing the agency?

Yes. The Government has decided to include the regulation of complementary medicines and therapeutic dietary supplements in the proposed trans-Tasman therapeutic products agency. The treaty will be signed on 10 December.

💬 Sue Kedgley: Why has the Minister made this decision before the Health Committee, which is inquiring into this very issue, has even reported back, and what does she say to members of the Health Committee who have been toiling away on this issue for 8 months, only to find at the end of it that that we have completely wasted our time because the Minister had already made up her mind?

It is not reasonable to expect the Governments of New Zealand or Australia to wait any longer for a report from a select committee—a report that the Government did not call for—on something that was first decided in September 2002, 15 months ago. Governments cannot hold up agreements on that basis. What countries would deal with us if we did?

💬 Mark Peck: What process will be followed once the treaty has been signed?

It is proposed that the national interest analysis and a text of the agreement be tabled in Parliament in accordance with the parliamentary treaty examination process.

💬 Dr Lynda Scott: What are the cost implications for New Zealand’s large complementary health-care market of having a trans-Tasman therapeutics product agency rather than mutual recognition and a strengthened New Zealand regulatory system?

Work undertaken by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research suggests the costs of regulating complementary medicines within a joint agency would be significantly less than that of a New Zealand regulatory scheme.

💬 Sue Kedgley: What would she say to the hundreds of submitters who made submissions in good faith believing that we were conducting a genuine inquiry into this issue, and does she understand how they may consider her decision to be arrogant and extraordinary, and that they too may feel—like the members of the Health Committee—that they have completely wasted their time because she had already made a predetermined decision on the matter that the committee is inquiring into?

The Cabinet made a decision in principle in November 2002 that complementary medicines would be included in the joint regulator. We have waited patiently for the select committee to report back. It still has not reported back. We are working closely with the Australian Government. We have considered what we have heard along the way. I think the member may well even be pleased when she sees the extent of what has been considered in the joint regulator.

💬 Sue Kedgley: In light of comments by the Minister for Small Business yesterday that Australian businesses face much higher compliance costs than New Zealand businesses do, why is she supporting a proposal to regulate dietary supplements by an expensive, Australian-based therapeutic goods agency, when overwhelming evidence was presented to the select committee that that will increase the compliance costs of small New Zealand dietary supplement industries, and that no further assurance will be given to consumers as a result of these increased compliance costs, as the Pan Pharmaceuticals debacle amply illustrated?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That question was far too long. The Minister may comment briefly on one or two aspects of it.

It is because of the Pan Pharmaceuticals situation that this Government has decided to move, in conjunction with Australia, to regulate complementary and therapeutic dietary supplements. Many New Zealanders demanded that we put in place regulation, and the work that I have seen shows that the impact on small business of what we intend to put in place will be minimal.

💬 Sue Kedgley: Is she aware that the overwhelming majority of submitters, consumers, and dietary supplement industries are completely opposed to the course she is pursuing, and does she agree with Margaret Wilson’s comment, in respect of the Supreme Court debate, that a remote and inaccessible final Court of Appeal is not a hallmark of modern democracy; if so, why is her Government supporting the establishment of a remote and inaccessible body, based in Australia and staffed principally by Australians, to regulate dietary supplements in New Zealand?

The member is wrong on just about every point she has made. She has assumed that the body is remote, she has assumed that it is in Australia, and she has assumed that it is under Australia’s control. She is wrong on all those points.

Speed Cameras—Demerit Points

12. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Transport: Has he considered introducing demerit points on speed camera tickets; if so, what recommendations, if any, is he proposing to his Cabinet colleagues on this matter?

Yes, but I am not telling.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: In making a recommendation to his Cabinet colleagues, did he tell his colleagues that in Victoria, which does have demerit points for speed camera tickets, it is not uncommon for family members to transfer demerit points between themselves to avoid getting a disqualification period, and in some companies it is not unheard of for the receptionist to accept demerit points so that top salespeople can keep their cars on the roads; and does this not show what a mockery such a policy would be?

There is a range of issues around demerit points for speed camera tickets. If the member would like further information on the issues in relation to Victoria, I am happy to show it to him. But those issues need to be considered carefully, and Cabinet is doing just that.

💬 Lynne Pillay: What indication has he received about public attitudes to speed?

There is growing support for a tougher line to be taken against speeding on our roads. For example, an NBR poll in September this year showed that 57 percent of people supported demerit points for speed camera tickets. Given that one-third of all fatal accidents were primarily speed related, I am keen to hear a lot more from those whose families have suffered the consequences of speeding, and a little less from those who want to drive as fast as they like.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Is the Government considering introducing demerit points for other transport matters, such as driving a tractor up the steps of Parliament, or does the Minister think he will end up with egg on his face, as the Government and the police have done today with the dropping of charges against Shane Ardern MP?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: In so far as that relates to the Minister’s responsibility he may comment briefly.

No, and no.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: In advising his Cabinet colleagues to consider demerit points as in Victoria, did the Minister tell them that Victoria’s road toll has remained virtually unchanged in the past 10 years, yet New Zealand’s has dropped by 37 percent in the same period, and did he tell his Cabinet colleagues that the New South Wales road toll has fallen by only 3 percent over the same period, despite motorists sometimes being hit with double demerit points?

Of course, the mess that has been made with those statistics really does not deserve comment, but I will just say that New Zealand comes off a higher base. The truth is that Victoria has plateaued out, and is looking at a range of new measures. Victoria is looking here at some of the things we are doing.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table research that shows that Victoria’s road toll has remained static in the last 10 years while New Zealand’s has dropped by 37 percent without having demerit points for speed cameras tickets, as Victoria has.

Document not tabled.

Question No. 3 to Minister

I seek leave to table a report from Brian Easton dated April 1997 that states the net social cost of tobacco abuse amounts to almost $22.5 billion.

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