Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

, on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Yes, the Government will support sending this bill to a select committee. Whether section 59 should be repealed or amended is still an open question that can only benefit from wide public debate at a select committee.

💬 Sue Bradford: Can the Minister confirm that full repeal of section 59 has the support of large numbers of organisations that advocate for the best interests of children, such as Barnardos New Zealand, as well as both the Children’s Commissioner and the Chief Families Commissioner?

Yes. I understand there are strong views on either side of the debate, and that is why the Government supports the bill going to a select committee—so that these very issues can be debated.

💬 Martin Gallagher: Is the Government, by supporting this bill, taking away parents’ choices about how they discipline their children?

No. The Government does not support a ban on smacking. The Government is supporting an informed and public debate between two extremes. New Zealanders express genuine distress whenever a child has been assaulted. At the same time, New Zealand parents do not want to be held criminally liable for smacking their children in the sweets queue at the supermarket.

💬 Murray Smith: Does the Minister of Justice agree that if section 59 is repealed, and smacking is therefore deemed to be abuse, what parents should primarily fear is not criminal prosecution but their children being removed by Child, Youth and Family Services, and the ridiculous situation resulting whereby the vast majority of New Zealand families could be subject to an investigation by Child, Youth and Family Services; if not, why not?

I cannot comment on the assertion that is made here about Child, Youth and Family Services, but I do have some sympathy for frontline Child, Youth and Family Services staff. They are condemned when they intervene and just as strongly condemned when they do not. What they and their Minister can be congratulated on is the significant reduction in the number of cases waiting to be addressed.

💬 Sue Bradford: Is the Minister aware that similar steps in other countries—to repeal laws that are their equivalent of our section 59—have not led to police arresting parents for lightly smacking their children or physically restraining them when they are in dangerous situations?

I understand that while some countries, such as Sweden and Germany, have moved to end any physical disciplining of children, others, such as England and Wales, and the state of New South Wales, have amended legislation to define more closely and clarify what forms of discipline are reasonable and acceptable.

💬 Murray Smith: Why is the Government supporting this bill, which will further disempower good New Zealand parents, when its other social engineering legislation this term has already done enough to lose it the election?

I do not accept the assertion that we are disempowering parents. Whether repealing or amending section 59 is the best alternative is the issue that needs examination at a select committee. This debate is a serious one. The community is divided. As parliamentarians, we should give the chance for this issue to be debated seriously.

💬 Dail Jones: Does the Minister know that in Sweden the 1979 smacking ban contributed to a 489 percent increase in physical child-abuse cases classified as criminal assaults, from 1981 to 1994, with the perpetration of criminal assaults against 7 to 14-year-olds increasing most rapidly in terms of those age groups raised after the smacking law was passed?

No, I have not read that research, but I think that is just the sort of case that should be argued in front of a select committee. I believe that that member would not agree with physical assault or brutality on children, nor would he agree with the criminalisation of parents who smack their kids. We need to sort this out and clarify it.

💬 Sue Bradford: Has the Minister seen the recent Littlies Lobby research, which came out last night, that shows that 97 percent of the over 1,300 parents of preschoolers it had surveyed did not believe physical discipline was highly effective; and given this clear signal from today’s parents, will she support full repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act?

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I would remind members that when members are asking a question the convention is that members hear the question in silence. I ask the Hon Marian Hobbs to respond.

I heard about this research on radio this morning, but I am not sure that one could conclude that 97 percent of parents support the repeal of section 59. The research does, by inference, support the work of this Government in investing in SKIP: Strategies with Kids—Information for Parents.

💬 Sue Bradford: Does the Government agree that repeal of section 59 must go hand in hand with improved education and support for parents and would-be parents; if so, can the Minister guarantee that funding for groups that provide such education and support is secure under her Government?

I absolutely agree that legislation, or changes in law, must go hand in hand with education. Education about positive parenting and effective non-physical discipline of children that sets clear boundaries and teaches kids the difference between right and wrong is a priority for this Government. That is why we have invested $10.8 million over 3 years in the SKIP: Strategies with Kids—Information for Parents positive parenting programme.

Child, Youth and Family Services, Department—Caregivers

8. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): Is she satisfied that her and the Child, Youth and Family Services’ response to concerns raised about the suitability of caregivers is consistent with her statement of 23 June 2005 that “we are now moving into a phase of what I would describe as performance excellence,”?

Yes, I am satisfied that when concerns about the suitability of caregivers are raised prior to children being placed, or during their placement with a caregiver, that response is consistent with my statement.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: What does she think of her own “performance excellence”, given it took her over 5 days to reply after I phoned and faxed her office for an urgent response because there was video evidence of child sexual abuse carried out by a Child, Youth and Family Services - appointed caregiver, even though the local vicar, the parents, and I had written to Child, Youth and Family Services months earlier warning of the caregiver’s unsuitability?

When the member who raised that question first contacted my office he was advised, given his concerns were being expressed 3 months after the children had been removed from the placement with that caregiver, that that matter would be subject to an investigation, and I had confirmed that already with my secretary. When he became abusive on the second phone call to my secretary I rang him personally. He was in caucus at the time.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I take personal offence at the Minister suggesting that I was abusive on the phone. I think I am generally known as a relatively mild and rational person. I can assure this House that when I phoned her secretary for the second time, I maintained absolute calm and decency because I was so concerned about this case.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: It is not unparliamentary, per se, to use the word “abusive”, but I would ask the Minister to reconsider whether it was appropriate in the context of her answer in this case.

When I rang Dr Hutchison back on the Tuesday, I was advised that he was in caucus. I confirmed with his secretary that I understood his concerns, the children had been removed 3 months prior to his call the previous week, and that I would contact him again to have a discussion with him, which I subsequently did. Dr Hutchison was well aware of the fact that the children had been removed 3 months prior.

In regard to the second point that Dr Hutchison raised in his letter to Child, Youth and Family Services in November of the previous year, concerns were not raised about the safety of the children. Concerns were raised about the accommodation situation of the children’s parents and whether the children would eventually be able to return to live with them. Those were not issues dealing with the safety of the children, but nevertheless the safety of the children was investigated and confirmed.

💬 Dave Hereora: Can the Minister outline Child, Youth and Family Services’ performance achievements?

I do not have time to outline them all, but I can highlight the fact that Child, Youth and Family Services has reduced the number of unallocated cases by 78 percent since May of last year, despite an 80 percent increase in notifications. Children are being seen more quickly, and determinations of abuse or neglect obviously made more quickly as well. The number of social workers has gone up by 26 percent under this Government. Many of those social workers are being registered, and nearly all of them would be threatened by an incoming National Government.

💬 Paul Adams: Can the Minister confirm whether her department has done anything to action the promise of her colleague the Hon Steve Maharey that it would move to ensure that grandparents raising their grandchildren are not short-changed by getting $30 less a week than Child, Youth and Family Services foster caregivers get; if not, is this just another example of where this Government is happy to ignore the needs of the natural family?

Tragically that is not a quote that I am familiar with, despite having frequent engagements with grandparents raising grandchildren, and Minister Maharey. I doubt that that quote is accurate, but I can confirm that significant progress has been made by both the Ministry of Social Development and Child, Youth and Family Services towards better supporting grandparents who are in that situation. I am delighted with the progress for grandparents, who certainly deserve that increased support.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the taxpayer paying, through Child, Youth and Family Services, for one family to care for four Chinese babies—babies of Chinese students formerly in this country who have disappeared back to China leaving this debt with the New Zealand State for the rest of their juvenile lives?

I presume that if that is the situation, then the answer to the question asking why the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services is caring for them would be that if the babies were left on their own they would die.

💬 Judith Collins: What does it take for the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services and this Minister to take seriously warnings of sexual depravity in the caregiver, if the warnings of parents, a local vicar, and a member of Parliament are ignored or dismissed, as we have just seen today, and how can she justify the fact that it took police action—it was the police who took the children out—before the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services woke up to the fact that it had put three vulnerable children into a home where they were likely to be sexually exploited?

As I indicated in the answer to the primary question, no such allegations have been made by Dr Hutchison in writing, by the children’s family, who confirmed their support of the placement of their children with that caregiver, or by any other member of the family. At the end of this question I will seek leave to table the letter from Dr Hutchison, with the family’s names removed, so that every member of our society can see that Dr Hutchison and Mrs Collins have grossly misrepresented his advocacy, which was non-existent.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What responsibility does the Minister regard herself or her colleagues as having to the New Zealand taxpayer, when she thinks it is a laughing matter for four Chinese students to leave their babies here and shoot off back to China, leaving the charges to the New Zealand taxpayer for the next 21 years; why is that a laughing matter?

I was certainly not laughing, and I did not notice any member of this House laughing. I do not agree with the member’s assertion that it was a laughing matter. I was not amused by it. The point I made was that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services has a State responsibility to be the parent for children when their birth parents are absent, and in this case tragically they were.

💬 Judith Collins: Who first decided that something had to be done to remove the three children from the sexual pervert; was it the police or was it the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, doing its job?

On 17 March, which was the first and only time that staff from the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services had notification of sexual abuse of the one child who was living with the caregiver, they removed that child immediately. The first and only time such a notification had been made was on 17 March this year.

💬 Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not think the Minister has addressed the question, which asked who brought this abuse to attention; was it the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services or was it the police?

The first and only time that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services was alerted to an allegation of sexual abuse was on 17 March of this year, by the police. Dr Hutchison has never made that allegation.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: In respect of the Minister’s department’s responsibility to bring these practices to the attention of the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, and herself, how many rip-offs of the New Zealand taxpayer have to happen before she and her colleagues realise just how serious this issue is, where all manner of costs are being imported into this country and imposed on New Zealand taxpayers, whilst 1,329 New Zealanders died on hospital waiting lists because we never had enough money to pay for their operations; when will she stop thinking it is a laughing matter and do something about it?

Can I first repeat that at no stage of the question this afternoon have I found the assertions made by the member a laughing matter, but now that the member has brought to my attention the fact that some people are coming to New Zealand from overseas, having babies, and leaving them here, to be cared for at the State’s cost, I will certainly have that matter investigated.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: I seek leave to table two letters. The first is dated 29 November 2004, which shows that my constituents are deeply concerned about various issues regarding their four children.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that letter, which has been sufficiently identified by the member. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: The second letter, dated 24 June and marked “urgent”, to the Hon Ruth Dyson states: “I believe this situation requires an immediate full and urgent inquiry.”

Document not tabled.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order relates to the substance of the Minister’s answer to my question. We have four babies being placed with foster parents, through the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, and the Minister says she does not know about it. I do not believe that that could have happened without it being brought to the attention of the department and the Minister. Perhaps the Minister at least could clarify that, in respect of her answer.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member, but that is not a point of order.

💬 Paul Adams: I seek leave to table the question of Judy Turner to the Hon Steve Maharey on 10 May, which confirms the statement I referred to in my supplementary question, as to what Steve Maharey said.

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

I seek leave to table Dr Hutchison’s letter to the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services of 29 November 2004, with all the family names deleted.

Document not tabled.

Nuclear-free New Zealand—Status

9. LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Does the Government intend to make any changes to New Zealand’s nuclear-free status?

, on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: No. The Labour-Progressive Government is proud of New Zealand’s nuclear-free status, and our clear and consistent policy is to maintain that status.

💬 Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: Has he seen any reports of proposals to change New Zealand’s nuclear-free status?

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Look on the Order Paper.

Yes, apart from the matter on the Order Paper I have seen reports on six such proposals. One indicated that the ban on nuclear ships could be gone by lunchtime. The second indicated that the ban should go only following approval of any change from the United States and Australia. The third said that no decision could be made from Opposition. The fourth proposal is to repeal the ban following a referendum. The fifth proposal was to repeal after a campaign in favour of change. The sixth, and so far the last, report suggests that some or all of the previous proposals are still there but no commitment is made to any of them right now. No wonder the national council of the National Party was so concerned about Dr Brash’s tendency to flip-flop.

💬 Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: What is the basis of the Government’s support for New Zealand’s anti-nuclear status?

The Government has consistently maintained a position in favour of New Zealand’s antinuclear status for some 20 years now. It is one of the distinguishing features of New Zealand’s foreign policy and is part of our general opposition to the spread of nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear warfare.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Can the Minister confirm that the visits of any foreign warship requires the consent of the New Zealand Government; if so, can he explain the purpose of the legislative ban on nuclear propulsion when the Government can accede to or deny any visit of any ship, particularly in light of the Edward Somers report to Cabinet of 1992, which, after a year’s study, concluded that there is no environmental risk, or public safety reason or justification, for continuing the ban on nuclear propulsion.

The legislation does not give the Government the capacity to override the ban on nuclear propulsion. It requires the Minister responsible, the Prime Minister, to certify to the best of her ability that in fact no nuclear weapons are on board. In the case of the United States, of course, it has already stated that all its surface ships no longer normally carry nuclear weapons, and therefore presumably any United States surface ships that are non - nuclear powered will be able to enter New Zealand ports on request.

Civil Union Act—Marriage Act

10. LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her response to the question in Express Magazine last year whether she would consider amending the Marriage Act 1955 once the Civil Union Bill had passed to allow for same-sex marriage, that “I think you need to see how the civil union settles in … see how it goes, see how the times are moving and keep in mind international developments. We tend to be as progressive as any country on these issues.”; if not, why not?

, on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. The member should note that the Prime Minister did not say she would consider amending the Marriage Act.

💬 Larry Baldock: Does this intention to keep the way open for same-sex marriage explain why she and the Labour Government were unwilling to give support to my Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill, which would make it clear that marriage in New Zealand can be between only one man and one woman, in the same way that the Liberal, National, and Labor parties in the Australian Parliament did last year; if not, why not?

No. First of all, I notice that the member is so keen on the bill that he has withdrawn it from the Order Paper for today, which is the last opportunity before the election for consideration of it. The second point is that the bill is pointless, because the law is clear. The courts have already ruled that marriage can be between only a man and a woman.

💬 Larry Baldock: Is she familiar with the advice from the Ministry of Justice regarding my bill, which states: “Although it has been clear that the common law understanding of marriage is between a man and a woman, this could be overturned because of some overseas decisions and the recognition of same-sex marriage in some countries.”; if so, does she appreciate the concern of the majority of New Zealanders—confirmed in a DigiPoll this week—that my bill be passed to make our law clear; if not, why not?

I repeat that if the member was so keen to have the bill passed this week, it is somewhat unusual that he withdrew it from the Order Paper for today. Perhaps that is not to be regarded in this context as some kind of breach of promise! In New Zealand we have already had the case of Quilter v Attorney-General, on which the court has ruled extremely clearly indeed. I would also suggest that the passage of the Civil Union Act itself would suggest to a New Zealand court that in fact the Marriage Act does relate to a relationship between a man and a woman only.

💬 Larry Baldock: Will the Prime Minister give an absolute assurance to the people of New Zealand and this House that if any case is lodged in the courts to challenge the common law position of marriage being between only one man and one woman, she—if she is the Prime Minister at the time—along with her Government, will move immediately, as it did with the foreshore and seabed legislation, to amend the Marriage Act along the lines of my proposed bill; if not, why not?

That is more than hypothetical, because, certainly, the advice the Prime Minister has is that the courts are quite clear on this particular matter and are not going to change their minds on this particular matter. I might say, on the foreshore and seabed matter, that we did actually wait for the court decision before legislating.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want just to save confusion. Given Mr Baldock’s new-found enthusiasm for his bill that he withdrew, and that would have been voted on and sent to a select committee had he not withdrawn it, could you, Madam Speaker, please advise him that he could seek leave of the House to put his bill back on the Order Paper so that members can vote on it.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. That is not a point of order.

Transport Funding—Increase Since Change of Government

11. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Transport: By how much has transport funding increased since the change in Government in 1999?

Total spending is up to a record $1.7 billion this year, which is more than 80 percent higher than when we took office.

💬 Hon Mark Gosche: What progress has been made on major Auckland projects, compared with the 1999-2000 year?

One way to measure a Government’s determination to get things done is to look at major projects. All Governments are capable of putting in another passing lane or straightening a bend, but the big projects, which are defined as costing more than $30 million, tell quite a different story. When we came to office the value of big projects in Auckland that were under way or recently completed totalled $130 million. Today, using exactly the same criterion, the big projects under way or recently completed total $1,300 million, which is a tenfold increase. That shows very clearly just which Government was responsible for Auckland’s gridlock and just which Government is addressing it.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Does the Minister feel that comparing absolute dollars today with figures from last century is about as sensible as saying: “Mine’s bigger than yours was then, but yours was bigger than ours was the time before that, and yours was bigger than ours the time before that.”, and why do we not get back to comparing what Nordmeyer and Nash spent between 1957 and 1960, which was only £85 million?

It is true that the more than 80 percent increase I gave the House is the nominal figure. If the member wants the real figure, it is a mere more than 65 percent. But it does not matter at all which way one looks at it; we are now addressing a land transport infrastructure deficit that was created during the time that the member who asked the question was Minister, and the underlying reason was that he was a member of a Government that had its mind on tax cuts—as it has now.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister tell the House why the Transit board, which includes the president of the New Zealand Labour Party, has overruled the Transit executive management recommendation that the Tauranga Harbour Bridge be designated a State highway, as it fully met all the criteria to be funded from the land transport programme, if the whole programme behind this, from the Government’s point of view, is not a giant confidence trick?

The only advice I have received from the Transit board, or management, is that it believes that there are two choices for the harbour link in Tauranga. One is to build it now, with tolling, and one is to build it later, without. Later, according to Transit, means starting more than 10 years from now, and tolling would mean, if it were to occur, the bridge being opened in 2009. That is the advice from Transit. What is more, when the public of Tauranga were asked what they thought was a good idea, 72 percent thought it was a good, or a very good, idea to toll and 22 percent thought it was a bad, or a very bad, idea to toll. So 72:22 is a pretty clear result, although 2 percent did not know.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister name one example of a place in this country that has two State highways on each side of a bridge where the bridge is not a State highway, and stop the obfuscation that says to the Western Bay: “You can have a bridge only if it’s tolled.”, and why does he not support the fact that the president of the Labour Party and that jacked-up board designed to get past their own advice so they would not have to pay for it right now?

It is true that if we did not have a toll on the bridge we could build a bridge, none the less, but we could not build it today. That is the choice. What is more, the issue of State highways is entirely irrelevant, because the first toll road, which was approved by this Government only a few months ago, happens to be State Highway 1 from Ōrewa through to Pūhoi. The construction of that road through some very difficult tiger country is now under way, whereas without tolling, it would not be.

💬 Nandor Tanczos: How much has spending on passenger transport increased since the Greens and Labour began cooperating on transport issues? [Interruption]

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Order, please. I am sure members all want to hear the answer to this question.

Spending on rail is up nearly 150 percent. Spending on bus and ferry services is up nearly 250 percent. The walking and cycling percentage increases do not exist, because under National there was no spending. If one adds capital expenditure on double tracking, busways, etc., total expenditure this year is set to top a quarter of a billion dollars. I acknowledge the consistent support of the Green Party in passenger transport’s come-back.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you are not responsible for answers, but I wonder whether the Minister might clarify it. I certainly took it from that answer that Labour’s next tax move will be to tax cyclists and pedestrians.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, but if the member wishes to raise a supplementary question, that is fine. But I think that his colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson has the call.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Do some of those amazing Auckland projects the Minister has referred to include State Highway 20, Mount Roskill extension, which Transit stated would start “this year” on its website back in 2000, which Transit stated on its website in 2001 would start “later this year”, which a glossy brochure dated 31 October 2001 stated would start “in May next year” and take 3 years and be opened by May 2005, which Transit has stated three times since then—including in a brochure that went to every household in Auckland—would start this year, and which, as all members of this House will know, has not yet started?

They just cannot take the good news, can they? About 15 projects are going on in Auckland and huge numbers of—[Interruption]

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

💬 Madam SPEAKER: You cannot hear, either.

💬 Rodney Hide: This is going to be good. I think we should all try to listen to it.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Could members please keep the level of interjections down a bit.

They just cannot take the good news, can they? Auckland’s major project expenditure is up tenfold from the day we took office. The number of projects under way is now way higher than it ever was. The number of projects that are coming in ahead of time is now higher than it was. The number of projects new to the 10-year planning coming on, is higher than it was. But what do Opposition members do? They pick on the one roading project that went backwards, because there was a problem with another piece of legislation concerning a volcanic cone. That is the one thing they can do.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why should the people of Mount Maunganui and Tauranga, who have paid for the old bridge, Route P, and all the rest with the tolls, have to put up with this confidence trick from his appointed body of changing the designation of the bridge not to be a State highway, when his Government allows the pouring into this country of 155,000 imported cars every year, most of which go to Auckland, and 40,000 to 50,000 immigrants every year, who go mainly to Auckland; why should we in Tauranga pay for that, and when will he agree to the New Zealand First proposition that the new bridge should be paid for straight out of State highway funds, and now?

The choice we presented to the good people of Tauranga was: “Would you like your bridge now with tolls, or would you like it later without?”, because that is how it is ranked. The good people of Tauranga voted, by a margin of 72:22, to have it now and to have it tolled. They said to the Government: “What’s more, we need more land transport infrastructure than that.” The Government has begun a process to see whether we should assist and, in due course, we will give an answer to that question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the survey done of the good citizens of Tauranga and the Western Bay of Plenty, which demonstrates that at no time were they asked the question: “Do you want the Government to pay for your new bridge?”.

Document not tabled.

Human Rights Act—Māori Protocol

12. STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) to the Minister of Corrections: Why does his department require women to go to the back of the room and not speak at welcoming and farewell ceremonies just because they are women, and how does he reconcile this discrimination against women with the Human Rights Act 1993?

, on behalf of the Minister of Corrections: The department has no such requirement.

💬 Stephen Franks: How does the Minister justify his answer to a probation officer, Ellen Armstrong, who complained about the same discrimination in March 2002, discreetly going through the proper channels but with absolutely no result; and why then did the Minister, on 7 March this year, tell me in writing that Josie Bullock’s similar complaint was being considered, together with a complaint against her from the Māori staff network, when 6 months later she was told in writing that her complaint could not be assessed because the department has no policy or protocol on pōwhiri and poroporoakī, and now she has been suspended for publicly claiming her right as a woman to equal treatment from the Government?

Firstly, employment matters are the responsibility of the chief executive of the department, not the Minister. However, I am also advised that the issue with Ms Bullock has nothing to do with her views on poroporoakī or pōwhiri, but with her conduct.

💬 Nandor Tanczos: Is the Minister aware of reports of a real case of discrimination, whereby female inmates are having access to their children removed as a form of punishment, and was it the influence of the “United Fundamentalist Party” that led to a policy of visiting the sins of the parents on the children?

💬 Madam SPEAKER: The Minister is not responsible for any other party, but may address the rest of the question.

Yes, I am aware of that matter.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Notwithstanding the Minister’s denials today of any problems within the Department of Corrections in these matters, have any of the recommended reviews been carried out in respect of Department of Corrections Māori-based rehabilitation programmes, and is the case of Josie Bullock an example of that department’s determination to place more emphasis on Māori custom than on reducing offending, or on other human rights?

I say once again, the issue with regard to Ms Bullock has nothing to do with her views on pōwhiri or poroporoakī. It is to do with her conduct.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is from the New Zealand Herald, which shows the very clear story of Helen Clark being told by one Tītewhai Harawira not to speak on the marae, and to sit down.

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

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: The second document is from the next year, when Tītewhai took Helen Clark on to the marae, and what sort of demonstration of consistency is that?

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

💬 Heather Roy: What evidence does the Minister have that efforts by the Department of Corrections to reduce sexist aggression and bullying by male offenders are not undermined by Māori cultural ceremonies, which emphasise the warrior dominance of males?

I am not sure where that question is going, but there are no instances where Māori culture has been used to undermine anyone at any institution.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Is the Minister seriously telling the House that, despite having notice of this question, he is not aware that Ellen Armstrong complained about discrimination in 2002 in Māori ceremonies and her being required to go to the back—and now we have a second case—or is it this Government’s view that it is satisfactory for a Minister to get up in the House and say: “Yes, I’m aware of it.”, and do nothing; does this Government actually stand against discrimination against women, and if so, what is he as Minister going to do about this disgraceful situation?

Attendance at these ceremonies is voluntary, and usually the speaking order is predetermined and the seating arrangements are done accordingly. Ms Bullock sat in a seat that was reserved for a speaker.

💬 Stephen Franks: I seek leave to table a letter from the Department of Corrections informing Josie Bullock that because the department does not have a policy or protocol on pōwhiri, there is nothing to assess her complaint against.

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

💬 Stephen Franks: I seek leave to table a copy of a communication from the department advising staff to turn up to their training in pōwhiri, which states the males will sit in the front row and the females in the back seats.

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

💬 Stephen Franks: I seek leave to table an email message from Ellen Armstrong to the office solicitor of the Department of Corrections in 2002, asking whether the workplace practice requiring females to sit behind their male colleagues was part of a discriminatory employment practice or policy.

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

💬 Stephen Franks: I seek leave to table a message from Ellen Armstrong to me setting out the steps that she had taken to challenge that practice.

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

💬 Nanaia Mahuta: Can the Minister confirm whether Western gender role distinctions reconcile with Māori cultural gender distinctions in relation to protocols for pōwhiri and whakatau?

In a marae situation there really are distinctions between who has certain roles. In an institution of that kind, as stated earlier on, there is no such policy, but training in protocols in relation to tikanga Māori is available.