Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

I have seen the publicly released police file. I will not be taking further action as that is an operational matter for the police commissioner, not for the Minister.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister whether he had read the file. It is one thing to have a document in one’s hand and say that one has seen it, but I asked him whether he had read it. Mr Speaker, could you ask him to answer me properly so that I can begin my supplementary questions.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I assumed the Minister meant he had read it. I assumed that is what the Minister said. If the Minister nods in agreement to that, I will assume that is what he means. Therefore, he has said he has read it.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case, what does the Minister intend to do about the fact that Shaw failed to tell the police he knew his assailant, Edwards, and that Shaw concealed evidence, even though the investigation had 15 police officers involved in it; what does the Minister of Police intend to do about that?

I refer to a 1993 ruling made by J J McGrath, then the Solicitor-General, who said: “For many years it has been accepted that ‘operational’ decisions made by the Commissioner are for that person and no other.” I do not get involved in individual cases.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What on earth does the Minister think he is doing holding a warrant to be a Minister of Police if such an appalling investigation—or lack of it—by the police ends up in someone being murdered and a claim made of homophobic panic, when no such a claim could properly now be sustained if the Minister had done his job properly in the first place?

I repeat that I do not get involved in operational matters. The police commissioner has reviewed the file. He is satisfied that the police took appropriate action.

Dioxin Contamination, Whakatāne—Flooding

10. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Were any dioxin contaminated sites inundated by the recent floods in Whakatāne; if so, does she have a list of those sites and an action plan for clean-up?

I am advised that the floods affected several sites around Whakatāne that contain contaminated wood waste, but Environment Bay of Plenty, as the regional council responsible for the area, ascertained that only one site risked losing the contaminated wood waste, and the soil cap was replaced to prevent that. Environment Bay of Plenty will have information on all the sites affected.

💬 Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is the Minister aware that when the town centre was sandbagged to prevent flood water from the river entering the town centre, that flood water—which came across the Matatua Park contaminated site—was diverted into residential areas, potentially poisoning people’s living rooms and gardens?

I think the member is asking me whether I am aware that the floodwaters crossed over the Matatua site. Yes, I am aware. But I have also been assured by Environment Bay of Plenty that there was only one site that actually risked losing wood waste. If the member is talking about going through underneath the cap, that is a different matter.

💬 Janet Mackey: What is the Government doing to clean up the contaminated sites?

We have set up a Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund to assist in the clean-up of contaminated land within New Zealand. The Ministry for the Environment is already working closely on remediating partnerships with seven regional councils on 13 separate projects—two of which are marae sites in the Whakatāne area.

💬 Jeanette Fitzsimons: When will the Government make funding available for the identification and isolation of all contaminated sites, and the production of a national register, so that future extreme events—whether they are earthquakes, floods, or storm surges—can be rapidly followed by well-informed clean-ups?

The clean-up and remediation of contaminated sites is an ongoing process. We will work through those contaminated sites that have been registered with the regional councils, which are the appropriate bodies to deal with in a flood or earthquake emergency.

💬 Janet Mackey: How does the Government determine funding assistance for contaminated sites?

We will give priority to sites that pose, or are likely to pose, a high risk to human health, sites that are located in environmentally or culturally sensitive areas—and that may include flood plains—or sites where the landowners do not have the financial resources to undertake the work required but want to do something about the problem.

💬 Jeanette Fitzsimons: Will the properties contaminated by flood water be tested for dioxins, given the Minister’s agreement that one site may have lost some contaminated wood waste and associated dioxin; and what support is the Minister giving to Environment Bay of Plenty for that dioxin monitoring?

The Ministry for the Environment, through the Contaminated Site Remediation Fund, has already funded Environment Bay of Plenty for the investigations around two of those sites. If another site has become a danger as a result of the floods, I would appreciate receiving a request from Environment Bay of Plenty.

Community Education—Funding

11. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education): What actions has he taken to ensure polytechnics are not making inappropriate use of classification 5.1 community education funding?

The policy changes announced earlier this year included a cap and the introduction of a framework for assessing the alignment and priorities set alongside classification 5.1 for 2005-06. Funding guide changes will prevent the use of any inducement and place tighter restrictions on the use of subcontracting, not only for 5.1 but for all publicly funded courses. The Tertiary Education Commission has been working with individual institutions where there have been particular issues, and an independent review by Joanna Beresford has been undertaken covering five institutions. The review has clarified with institutions the funding guide and policy requirements, identified policy implementation issues, and reviewed plans to manage 5.1 enrolments into the future.

💬 Hon Bill English: Why should the House believe anything the Minister says about capped, aligned, strategised, quality-assured funding priorities and caps when last week Aoraki Polytechnic managed to enrol dozens of people in a 5.1 community education course, where they sat and watched a cooking demonstration at the South Canterbury Fair?

I, of course, investigate every issue that is raised. The following is the advice I have been given about that particular course. The short course was not a stall or show event; it was held indoors at the Ashburton Senior Centre with appropriate equipment, qualified tutors, and student information sheets. All 160 enrolments took place before the demonstration. There were no enrolments on the day. The short course was approved by the academic board and has identified learning outcomes. It has been run on several occasions previously under similar arrangements. I believe what I have got to say, because, unlike the member who brings cardboard boxes into the House, what I say usually has something in it.

💬 Dr Ashraf Choudhary: What measures has the Government undertaken to reinforce polytechnic activity in areas that contribute strongly to its core role?

I recently announced the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics Business Links Fund. The institutes and polytechnics can now apply for funding from that fund, which received $21.5 million spread over 4 years in Budget 2004. Each of the institutes and polytechnics will be able to apply for a maximum of $300,000 per academic year. The Tertiary Education Commission will approve the first business engagement plans from the institutes and polytechnics early next year. This is not a one-off grant but one that will see them develop their core roles. I understand that the member opposite wants to abolish that fund. The polytechnics will look forward to talking to him about that.

💬 Hon Bill English: Given the Minister’s vast number of bureaucratic tools that he has talked about in the House, what does he say to the constituent in Timaru who said: “However, I was less than impressed to go to a lunchtime speech by Mike Tāmaki to be told I could stay if I filled in the form, date of birth, ethnicity and signature, or Aoraki won’t get paid.”; and does he regard it as an appropriate use of equivalent full-time student funding to fund business lunches in Timaru?

I say to the member that it is lucky we are here, because for 9 years that member did nothing about any spending. He ran a market model. We have changed—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No. The Minister will now answer the question.

I would tell Mr Tāmaki that thank goodness Labour is here and is able to change this situation and do something about it, because the National Government did nothing about any of these issues for the 9 years it was in power.

💬 Hon Bill English: When will the Minister do something about the Tertiary Education Commission, a body that consumes $45 million of taxpayers’ money each year and is paying out for sit-down cooking demonstrations, twilight golf, long business lunches, and radio courses in Māori singalong?

The Tertiary Education Commission, which oversees the spending of $2.4 billion and has delivered such things as the Performance-based Research Fund agreed to by people right throughout this House, and which is currently about 2 years old, is doing something about the very courses that that member’s Government did nothing about when it was in power.

💬 Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the effect of his now having put caps on community education funding is to guarantee to the polytechs around $120 million, and that they will have to find all sorts of creative ways to spend that money, which could easily be spent much better elsewhere?

No, because, as the sector knows, over the next 3 years this area of funding will be progressively changed.

Compliance Costs—International Variations

12. CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister for Small Business: What recent reports has he received on international variations in compliance costs for businesses and how do they compare with the New Zealand situation?

In addition to the World Bank’s Doing Business in 2005 report that placed New Zealand No. 1 for the ease of doing business out of 145 countries, during the adjournment I also received a report from the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce that showed small business in Australia is struggling with the range of compliance regimes, such as payroll tax.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: What reports has he seen indicating Australia’s payroll tax, stamp duty, and complicated GST system make Australia a better place for small to medium sized enterprises to do business?

I can confirm that I have received no official reports suggesting that. In fact, the only person who seems to think that these are great ideas is the Leader of the Opposition. However, I do note in a report that more businesses in New South Wales favour a reduction in compliance burden to lower taxes. Of course, if they moved to New Zealand they could have both.

💬 Paul Adams: How can the Minister continue to claim to have eased the tax burden on small businesses when, for the second year running, the Business New Zealand - KPMG compliance cost survey reports that tax compliance costs cause the greatest angst for smaller businesses, or is he relying on the tarot cards to predict when these mysterious benefits for small businesses might materialise?

I do not go to that member’s church for tarot cards, but having stated that, the KPMG Business New Zealand compliance cost survey noted that compliance costs have actually reduced by an average of 17 percent per business.

Questions to Members

Question No. 1 to Member

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask for your guidance on this. This relates to a question to Mr Russell Fairbrother on 14 September 2004. He was asked when Nanaia Mahuta would be presenting a submission to the select committee. His answer was that it was received outside the parameters set by the committee, so at that stage there was no date set. You then intervened and provided an answer to the question, when you said that: “The member said that it was not going to be heard.” Now, in fact, the member had not said that. You said that. You answered the question, and that satisfied the House. My question is in relation to the question I am putting today. First of all, am I able to refer to you answering the question in an emphatic way, in which case do I relate that back to what Mr Fairbrother said, or what?

Well, the member can try his luck. All I can say is that I will let the Standing Orders stand, and I am not going to be unreasonable about this issue.

💬 RODNEY HIDE: Well, no, I am afraid you have not answered my question.

Well, I have not heard what the member is going to ask—

💬 RODNEY HIDE: Well, I said earlier today that you denied that you actually direct members. Here you actually have a situation where you answered the question that was put to the member, and you said something that was quite different to what the member had said. The problem we have is that we sit in this House and have no option. We accepted your word when you said: “The member said that it was not going to be heard.” The member actually said no such thing. He said it did not meet the criteria. I want to know what the standing is of your comment.

Well, let me put it this way. The standing of my comment is as I made it, and I stand by it. When I hear the member’s question I will judge accordingly. [Interruption]

💬 Rodney Hide: I am sorry? [Interruption] I thought, Mr Speaker, that was the last time.

No, no, I just tell the member that he had not started to ask the question. Please ask it. [Interruption]

💬 Rodney Hide: See how they get away with it, Mr Speaker?

The Minister concerned will leave the Chamber.

Hon Chris Carter withdrew from the Chamber.

Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee—Member's Submission

1. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee: Does he stand by his statement on 14 September that Nanaia Mahuta’s submission “was received outside the parameters set by the committee”, and was an exception made for this submission to be heard?

Yes and no.

💬 Rodney Hide: Was it correct when the Speaker summarised the member’s answer by saying on 14 September that Nanaia Mahuta was not going to be heard; if it is not correct, why does he think the Speaker would understand whether Nanaia Mahuta was going to be heard?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: In so far as the member could relate this to his responsibilities as chairman of the committee, he may answer.

Hansard shows that in response to my answer “It did not meet the criteria.”, the Speaker said: “The member said that it was not going to be heard. He said it did not meet the criteria.”

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is very good to have Hansard read back, but I actually asked a question. I did not want Mr Fairbrother to read the Hansard, which I have in my hand.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Repeat the question, please.

💬 Rodney Hide: Was it correct when the Speaker said, in summarising the chairman’s answer, that Nanaia Mahuta was not going to be heard, and then she was, and how does he think the Speaker would have any idea whether Nanaia Mahuta was going to be heard?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That was a slightly different question from the original one, but the member may answer.

At the time the Speaker made that comment he was correct. I have no idea how the Speaker’s mind works, and that is why I am here and he is up there.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: On what basis did the chairperson decide that she should be heard?

The assigning of the last group of oral submissions was delegated by the committee to the independent specialist adviser. They were heard on 4 October and included Nanaia Mahuta.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: If Nanaia Mahuta’s submission was, to use the chairman’s words, “received outside the parameters set by the committee”, why was it heard?

The committee resolved to let the independent specialist adviser call other submitters not selected by the committee, and those submitters were to be heard on 4 October.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am struggling with that answer. It is clearly for the committee to decide who is to be heard. We came to the House and asked Mr Fairbrother whether she would be heard and on what date. He explained that her submission was outside the criteria, and, in the magical way that your mind works, Mr Speaker, you knew that she was not to be heard, and you said that, and that was told to the House. I understand that situations change and people can later on think it is better to hear a submission than not hear it, but the very idea that this was not a decision of the committee, of which that member is the chairman, has to be preposterous and out of order. It is for the committee to decide who will be heard, not some independent body, even if it is appointed by that committee.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The question of whether the committee should have delegated that decision is a fair question, but that is a matter for the committee. There is nothing further for me to judge on this particular point of order.

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

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It had better be new, because—

💬 Rodney Hide: It is very new.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It had better be.

💬 Rodney Hide: You said that the question of whether it should have been delegated is a fair question. Does that mean that a committee could delegate anything, or are there some parameters that apply? When there have been so many thousands of submissions, the very idea that the decision as to who will appear and who will not—particularly when one submitter is a Labour Party MP, and she gets chosen over all the other people that do not get chosen—gets delegated seems to me odd. Is it possible for a committee to delegate anything?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is a hypothetical question.