Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

Yes; and no.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Was it merely an error of judgment that Taito Phillip Field kept from the then Associate Minister of Immigration the fact that Mr Field did a deal with Mr Sunan Siriwan for him to work for Mr Field without pay in Samoa in return for a work permit for New Zealand, as alleged in a sworn affidavit by Mr Sunan Siriwan; if so, why is that merely an error of judgment?

The matter discussed is the subject of a conflict of evidence and has been referred to the New Zealand Police.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Was it merely an error of judgment that Taito Phillip Field kept from the Associate Minister the fact that Mr Field employed Mr Sunan Siriwan’s partner, Ms Phanngarm, as his wife’s personal housekeeper in Samoa, where she “clean everything, even her shoe, clean her house, clean her clothes by hands, and wash her underwear by hands, everything” without pay, in exchange for his assistance in securing a New Zealand work permit for her; if so, why is that merely an error of judgment?

I repeat that the matters referred to are the subject of a conflict of evidence and have been referred in the proper way to the New Zealand Police.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: When Taito Phillip Field kept from the Associate Minister of Immigration the information that Ms Phanngarm was working for Mr Field’s wife without pay in Samoa, “like slave, I still have to work even I’m sick”, in exchange for immigration assistance, does he consider that merely an error of judgment; if so, why?

I repeat that the matters have been referred to the New Zealand Police, who are the competent people to investigate, and, where appropriate, decide whether they are for the courts to determine.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: When considering the latest immigration applications of Mr Sunan Siriwan and his partner, Ms Phanngarm, was it merely an error of judgment for Mr Field to take $2,000 in cash from Mr Sunan Siriwan, neither issuing a receipt nor returning the $69 overpaid for Ms Phanngarm’s deportation costs; if so, why is that merely an error of judgment?

The allegations referred to, to my knowledge, have not been established as fact but have been referred to the New Zealand Police for further investigation.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: When considering the latest immigration application by Mr Siriwan, was it merely an error of judgment for Taito Phillip Field to pay Mr Siriwan $1,000 in cash—cash he just happened to have in his pocket—when he met Mr Siriwan in Samoa last week, given that Mr Siriwan has signed an affidavit alleging Mr Field offered him the money to stop him from talking to the media; if so, why is that merely an error of judgment?

I am sure that the matter to which the member refers will be further investigated by the New Zealand Police. The member is indeed brave to refer to things in people’s pockets.

Benefits—Transition to Work

7. GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports, if any, has he received on the Government’s progress at moving New Zealanders off benefits and into work?

I am pleased to advise the House that Government policies like Working for Families and Work and Income’s new service approach are continuing to have success in assisting people to move off benefits and into work. In the year from September 2005 to September 2006 the total number of people on benefits fell by a further 10,000. This is one of the reasons why, under this Labour-led Government, we have the highest-ever levels of labour-force participation and record low levels of unemployment at 3.6 percent.

💬 Georgina Beyer: What have been the changes in the number of people on the domestic purposes benefit?

In the year to September 2006 the number of people receiving the domestic purposes benefit fell by over 5,000. This was nearly all accounted for by a drop in the number of sole parents on domestic purposes benefits, which in the year to September fell from 97,796 to 92,148.

💬 Judith Collins: Has the Minister seen reports showing that the number of sickness and invalids beneficiaries has increased by 50 percent since his Government came to office; and, if he has, why are sickness and invalids beneficiary numbers increasing, despite his numerous employment assistance programmes?

The member will be pleased to hear that over the past 6 years more than 800,000 people have left the unemployment benefit. Of those—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What about the sickness benefit?

Wait up, ugly! Of those people, only one in 11, or 9 percent, have transferred to the sickness benefit. I also remind members that sickness and invalids benefit beneficiaries are people certified by doctors as being in need of Government support.

💬 Heather Roy: Why, when—as the Minister states—the number of people on the domestic purposes benefit has dropped by over 5,000, or around 5.2 percent, from 2001 to 2006, have the debts owed by domestic purposes benefit beneficiaries increased by more than $15 million over this time?

I remind the member that we have a zero tolerance policy on debt fraud, but the reason for the increase in the figure, according to my advice, is that recoverable debts are also being included in that total.

Land Information New Zealand—Confidence

8. Hon DAVID CARTER (National) to the Minister for Land Information: Does he have confidence in Land Information New Zealand; if not, why not?

Yes.

💬 Hon David Carter: Why does he have confidence in Land Information New Zealand if he is going to have to personally vet every land tenure review proposal?

The Government has said it has concerns about outcomes of tenure review, particularly around landscape values in lakeside areas. That is the reason I am paying more attention to that issue at the moment.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: Why has the Government said that it is reassessing landscape outcomes from tenure review, especially around lakes?

It is hard to think of a more important landscape issue in New Zealand. These landscapes are central to the vision we have of ourselves as New Zealanders and to our tourism. These are long-held values and they are well expressed on the memorial at Burkes Pass to Michael John Burke, a runholder back in 1855. That memorial includes the words: “O ye who enter the portals of Mackenzie to found homes, … shall your mountain faces and river flats be preserved to your children’s children, and for evermore.” Those issues remain current and that is why I am paying more attention to them now.

💬 Hon David Carter: Will he assure the House today that his decision to be personally involved in every land tenure will not delay any final decisions?

No.

💬 Hon David Carter: What was the point of commissioning the Donn Armstrong report into valuation methods if the Government is going to ignore totally the findings of that report?

The Government is not totally ignoring the Donn Armstrong report and, indeed, it is clear that the process of that report has led to clarity as to the rules that ought to be applied. The Government has also made it clear—and I emphasise—that it values the contribution of sustainable high country farming in New Zealand, both to the New Zealand economy and to South Island communities. The Government wants that contribution to continue and it is confident that it will.

💬 Jacqui Dean: Is the Minister aware of a proposal to transfer 20,000 acres at Mount Ida in Central Otago from Land Information New Zealand into the Department of Conservation estate, which will have the effect of probably forcing three farming families off their land, and does he care?

I am aware of the issues there that relate to the Mount Ida syndicate and the so-called Soldiers Syndicate. These are areas of land where the occupiers have no security of tenure, because they are not pastoral leases, they are non-renewable pastoral licences.

💬 Hon David Carter: Is this Minister ever going to stand up to the relentless march by the Department of Conservation and Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society to lock up vast chunks of the South Island, which has been farmed without detriment for over 100 years?

The only mechanisms that enable land to be returned to the Department of Conservation from pastoral leases—other than consensual sales—are through the voluntary tenure review process, which is voluntary, and there is no compulsion on either lessees or tenants. [Interruption] The member shouts out it is voluntary. There is no proposal from the Government to make it compulsory.

Fishing, Foreign Crews—Public Comment

9. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of Immigration: Has he received any public comment on the recently announced policies for foreign fishing crews?

I have seen an editorial in the Dominion Post of Monday, 16 October, that warmly welcomes the foreign charter fishing crew policy the Government announced last week. In particular, it notes that it was the fishing industry’s failure to drive out the “cowboys” that prompted the Government to act and that we “should not be put off by the squawks of those who cannot see past their own bank balances.”

💬 Sue Moroney: Why will the fishing policy announced by the Government protect and promote the New Zealand fishing industry over the longer term?

The policy promotes human rights and decent labour conditions, thus enhancing the reputation of the New Zealand fishing industry. It also prevents a race to the bottom, whereby legitimate New Zealand operators are undercut by cheap foreign labour.

💬 Peter Brown: Can I take it from the Minister’s answer that he shares New Zealand First’s view that foreign fishing crews should be allowed only when it is proved that New Zealand workers are unwilling or unable to undertake the work, and does he also agree that adopting industry-wide minimum employment standards will encourage New Zealanders to do the work, which will reduce the reliance on foreign crews?

It is a longstanding tenet of Government immigration policy that jobs should always be offered to New Zealand workers where they are available. Secondly, it is a longstanding part of Government policy that terms and conditions for foreign crews should be equivalent to those of domestic ones.

💬 Tariana Turia: Would the Minister agree that the real concern for the minimum wages being paid to foreign fishing crews has more to do with undermining the Māori fisheries industry and assisting the Talley’s family to achieve cheap quotas and control of Māori fisheries because of that family’s relationship with politicians?

It ill-serves a party that claims to represent some of the lowest-paid New Zealanders to be advocating that iwi fishing companies make a profit from the sweat of Third World workers being paid even less. The officials’ advice is that although there may be some economic impact on firms—[Interruption]

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have my speaker on high, I am trying to listen, and I cannot hear the Minister who is two benches behind me.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I know. I thank the member and I understand that that is also why the members were rising at the back of the Chamber. I ask the Minister, however, to just directly address the question.

I will directly address the question, again. It ill-serves a party that claims to represent some of the lowest-paid New Zealanders to be advocating that iwi fishing companies make a profit from the sweat of Third World workers being paid even less—

💬 Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister to address the question.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: So would I. I ask the Minister, please do not preface it with statements, but just get to the substance of the question.

Māori make up a significant percentage of the people working on fishing vessels, and it is important that their conditions are not undermined by allowing foreigners to do the work on substandard terms. The officials’ advice is that although there will be some economic impact on some firms, there is no evidence that iwi will be disproportionately affected.

Gambling—Problem-gambling Service Providers

10. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Associate Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the Ministry of Health’s contracting and monitoring of problem-gambling service providers; if not, why not?

Yes, I am satisfied with the strategic progress being made, but there is always room for improvement.

💬 Sandra Goudie: Can the Minister explain why his ministry paid the Pacific People’s Addiction Services of Hamilton $143,000 last year for counselling eight people at an average of $18,000 each?

That provider, along with 12 other providers, is currently being reviewed. They are new providers in a difficult area of social responsibility in this Government. They have been funded to develop services to assist people with problem-gambling habits. The outcome of that review will identify whether any problems have occurred.

💬 Sandra Goudie: Can the Minister explain why his Government overpaid the Pacific People’s Addiction Services of Hamilton $143,000 last year for counselling eight people, when that organisation’s official contract requires it to see over 300 people; and does he realise that his ministry agreed to pay this money for people who may have had only a 16-minute phone conversation?

As I said before, a number of providers have been set up to assist in the problem-gambling area. This is one of those organisations. It, along with 11 others, is currently under review in order to ensure that the money provided has been spent wisely.

💬 Sandra Goudie: Can the Minister explain why the Government paid the Waipareira Trust $180,000 for counselling only 13 people last year—an average of $14,000 for each person—when the contract required the trust to counsel 440 people for the year; and why is the Government overpaying when these contracts are not being met?

Those questions will be answered by the review. I would like to remind that member—

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. Members will be leaving the Chamber if this continues. We have done quite well so far. People are entitled to be heard. Would the Minister please address the question.

I would like to remind that member that we are dealing with a very serious public health issue here. Every day New Zealanders lose $5.5 million. Currently, 39,000 people are considered to be problem gamblers, and another 17,000 in this country are considered to be at risk. The Ministry of Health has taken over responsibility for this area, and it is developing work with problem-gambler providers.

💬 Sandra Goudie: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask that the Minister address the question, which asks him to explain why the Government paid the Waipareira Trust when the contract was not being met.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: The Minister did address the question. But the member is entitled, if she wishes, to ask another question.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister did not answer the question. The contract was for some 440 treatments. The organisation provided only 14 treatments, but it was paid out for the whole lot. Then he proceeded to tell us that 17,000 people in this country have a gambling problem. Well, how can we believe that, given that only 14 people turned up, the contract was for 440 treatments, and the money was paid? The member should just answer the question.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. I have ruled on it.

💬 Sandra Goudie: Why is the Minister happy to pay $14,000 for a 16-minute phone conversation or a single half-hour counselling session; and if he has known how poorly all these problem-gambling providers are performing, why has he given nearly all of them extra contracts worth tens of thousands of dollars more?

I do not accept for a moment the claims made by that member. A review is currently under way. There will be a normal audit process of every one of those providers. They have been paid money to assist them to set up the organisation that they have, and if there are any problems they will be identified through the review.

💬 Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is impossible to hear the Minister’s response at the back of the Chamber due to the constant interjections.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Will the Minister please repeat his answer succinctly.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. While you were ruling, there was again a barrage from Simon Power. I could hear you, but I am sure people at the back of the Chamber will have trouble in doing so if he keeps that up.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Mr Power has a loud voice and he sits right beside the Speaker. So I ask the member not to intervene in future. Will the Minister please succinctly address the question.

That question, and a number of others, will be answered by the review that is currently under way.

💬 Sandra Goudie: Does the Minister realise how bad this scandal looks, when only yesterday a casino was fined for not dealing with a problem gambler, yet this Government is wasting thousands of dollars overpaying counselling services; and is it not time that the Auditor-General was called in to blow the whistle on this misuse of public money?

The fact that a casino was fined yesterday identifies the major problem that some organisations throughout the country are not taking responsibility to try to minimise harm from problem gambling.

Indigenous Rights—Consultation

11. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What were the 13 occasions between 1997 to 2003 on which New Zealand has consulted “interested Māori and others” on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and what are the names of the groups and individuals that were consulted on those 13 occasions?

on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: They were on various days in May 1997, July 1997, October 1999, October 2000, November 2000, May 2001, November 2001, July 2002, August 2002, and August 2003. Many hundreds of people attended, so obviously one cannot list all of them. Amongst the groups involved were the Māori Women’s Welfare League, New Zealand Māori Council, National Māori Congress, Māori Legal Service, Rātana Church, Waitangi Tribunal, and the Māori Land Court.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: What advice did his office give that led the Prime Minister to respond to Dr Pita Sharples, in a letter of 16 October 2006, regarding the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states that some critics “have not even read the chair’s text or the many statements we have given on the subject.”; and what evidence does he believe the Prime Minister may have to support that claim?

There is a great deal of misinformed comment on the declaration. One of the saddest things is that a number of countries indicated that they are voting for the declaration, but have no intention of implementing it.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: What is his responsibility for the statement made on 16 October 2006, which was tabled at the 61st session of the United Nations General Assembly by a representative of New Zealand, which stated: “Social and economic policies are best determined on the basis of need.”, and where does he suggest that the notion of “rights” fits within this?

The Government is a signatory, along with a very large number of other countries, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Unlike many of those countries, we actually follow that declaration.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: I seek leave to table a letter from the Prime Minister to Dr Pita Sharples concerning the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

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

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: I seek leave to table the statement made by the representative of New Zealand to the United Nations General Assembly 61st session.

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

Food Standards Australia New Zealand—Folic Acid

12. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister for Food Safety: Does she intend to sign up New Zealand to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand plan, to add folic acid to bread, at the Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council this month; if so, why?

on behalf of the Minister for Food Safety: The Minister is on record as being a strong supporter of folic fortification, and will take into account the submissions and advice she has received to date, and will continue to receive, when she participates in the discussion on the Food Standards Australia New Zealand proposal at the upcoming ministerial council meeting.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: Why would she commit New Zealand to a rushed-through new plan for mandatory fortification of most breads with folic acid, when folic acid supplements will still need to be taken to prevent neural tube defects, when evidence of effectiveness is in doubt with this new plan, and when a public opinion poll shows that more than 80 percent of New Zealanders are against mandatory fortification?

This is not a rushed process. When we came into Government in 1999 that member led the charge to have folic fortification. There has been much discussion about the level of fortification within bread, and it is important that we do not have levels that are unsafe. That member supports that position, and I am sure he will support—or he should support—the precautionary approach being proposed.

💬 Steve Chadwick: Has she seen any reports on this matter?

Yes, I believe she has, in the Sunday Star-Times of 23 July, where Dr Hutchison called for more time for consultation, which would delay the introduction of the one known means of reducing neural tube defects. The question I ask of Mr Hutchison is this: does he support this or does he not?

💬 Madam SPEAKER: The member is not entitled to ask that question.

💬 Barbara Stewart: Can we expect to see further Government action aimed at removing additives such as excess sugar from food, once a precedent has been set for the Government to interfere with food by adding folic acid to bread on a population-wide basis?

Any proposal such as that is up for discussion between officials of Australia and New Zealand, which is the agreed process.

💬 Sue Kedgley: Will the Minister listen to the appeals of the baking industry and the entire organics industry, and seek to exempt organic breads from mandatory fortification, thereby ensuring some consumer choice, or will she undermine the entire organics standard, which explicitly prohibits the adding of synthetic additives to organic products?

I know that the Minister is aware of the issues around organic production, and will take on board those concerns when she has discussions with officials from Australia and her counterparts from Australia.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: Why is she considering adopting mandatory fortification of most breads without due consultation, when even the New Zealand Food Safety Authority as recently as 31 July this year stated: “All the government departments involved in this joint submission have strong concerns at the very short consultation period provided for the proposal.”, and why is she going off, once again, half-baked?

For that member to claim this has been a rushed consultation process is ridiculous. He himself was advocating for this in 1999 when we came into Government. There has been extensive consultation. The Minister is to have discussions with her colleagues in Australia, and decisions will be made then.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: Can the Minister confirm that in the excellent article by Dr Paul Hutchison in the New Zealand Herald in 2000 he states that there would initially be voluntary fortification of bread; and that in the United Kingdom, 6 years later, in the light of new evidence, the UK scientific advisory committee on folate and disease has requested further time to consider potential risks and benefits of increased folic acid intake?

I believe that that member does support folate fortification. The approach in the proposal is a precautionary one. The proposed levels are quite low but will assist to reduce neural tube defects in the New Zealand population, which currently run at about 50 a year.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Would members just settle, please.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: Has the New Zealand Government undertaken any substantial ethical processes relating to the introduction of mandatory fortification of most breads; if yes, what are they; if not, why not?

I am not aware of the detail of that. If the member would like to put down a question, I am sure we can get a substantive answer for him.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I call Dr Paul Hutchison. [Interruption] We need to hear the question.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: Does she agree with the joint food standards submission that a comprehensive monitoring programme should have been developed as part of the draft assessment report, and can she offer proof that New Zealand is ready for a comprehensive monitoring programme; if not, why not?

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Members, we need to hear the answer in the same manner—in silence.

I am sure those assurances and those issues will be part of the discussion that the Minister will have next week in, I believe, Australia.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: I seek leave of the House for Paul Hutchison to table the excellent letter from Paul Hutchison on this subject.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: The member cannot seek leave on behalf of another member.

💬 Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a document that indicates that at the ministerial council next week we will have one vote out of 10. The Australians will have nine votes, and we will have one.

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

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: I seek leave to table the excellent article in the New Zealand Herald.

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