Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

Yes. Earlier today I announced that a container cell block capable of housing up to 60 prisoners is to be built at Rimutaka. That new block will be used as a trial to determine whether that type of prison accommodation can be used across the wider prison estate.

💬 Shane Ardern: When will the new cells be available to house prisoners, and why is the increase necessary?

The tender process for the construction will commence immediately, and it is expected that the new cells will be ready to house prisoners by March next year. The increase is necessary because this Government has no choice. We have inherited a capacity crisis from the previous Government. Its failure to plan means that the number of prisoners will soon exceed the number of beds available in our prisons.

Drinking Water Assistance Programme—Community Funding

10. BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that his review of the Drinking-water Assistance Programme to see whether it “aligns with Government priorities and provide(s) value for money in the health sector” will mean only the poorest of communities will soon be eligible for already funded money to make their water safe to drink?

It is not clear what the member means by “the poorest of communities”. The programme is already weighted to more deprived communities over more prosperous communities. As I have said from the very beginning, because we inherited $160 million of unfunded health services from the previous Government, and $600 million of capital requests with little to meet those requests, some programmes will be stopped, some will be changed, and some will be deferred.

💬 Brendon Burns: Has the Minister alerted his ministerial colleague the Minister of Māori Affairs that a $1,000 per capita ceiling on contributions is proposed, meaning that many small marae will be unable to bring their drinking water up to World Health Organization minimum standards, or is this just another example of the Government ignoring Māori?

I have had discussions with numerous colleagues on this matter, including Minister Turia, in particular. We have inherited a situation whereby this very important drinking-water subsidy is based pretty much on a “first come, first served” basis. What concerns me is that a lot of lower-income communities, many of them represented by members opposite, may not be in a position to get those funds, compared with communities that are more advanced. If the member wanted to represent many of those poorer communities he would be concerned that the scheme currently runs on a “first come, first served” basis.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: Is the Minister aware of any other subsidy schemes that are limited to the poorest communities?

Yes, I am, as a matter of fact. The previous Labour Government announced extra funding for sewerage subsidies in Budget 2008. They were specifically targeted to those who were ranked 7 and above on the deprivation index. We have to note that in health the deciles are the reverse of those in education, which means that the previous Government wanted to target the poorest communities. I have no doubt that the member opposite does not want to subsidise water schemes for the richest coastal communities while poor people miss out. Mind you, his leader wanted to pay the unemployment benefit to millionaires.

💬 Brendon Burns: Has the Minister consulted Local Government New Zealand, which supported his earlier 3-year moratorium on meeting minimum drinking-water standards because of the costs but which now faces losing subsidies that the previous Labour Government put in place to assist it to make water safe?

There is an allocation of funding. The subsidy is already targeted, but some communities are better prepared to apply for money than others. This Government wants to avoid the risk that many needy communities will miss out. That is part of our consideration, together with the quite substantial financial pressures that we inherited in the health portfolio. I remind the member that we came to office with $160 million of health services for which there was no money.

💬 Brendon Burns: Does the Minister still maintain that providing safe drinking-water is a local government responsibility, and how can he say so when the Government commits to meeting minimum standards, delays them for 3 years, and then cuts already established funding to help councils and small communities meet the world standards his Government is committed to meeting?

The problem with the member’s question is that members of the previous Government went around the country saying: “We’re going to apply these much higher water standards and we’ll subsidise you to do it.”, but it turned out that the cost of that for local government was many hundreds of millions of dollars more than the previous Labour Government pledged. We are trying not only to make sure that the most disadvantaged communities in New Zealand are assisted but also to ensure that communities are given time to assist with their planning in this area. Things are very tough for many of our poorest communities, and I do not think they want a substantial increase in their rating burden at this time.

💬 Brendon Burns: Will the Minister accept that when a serious outbreak of water-borne illness occurs he will not be able to wash his hands of responsibility?

As the member knows, responsibility in that area rests with local government. There is still a requirement on local government, or water suppliers, to take remedial action where they want to. I would be surprised if the member truly believes that we should have a water subsidy scheme for millionaire communities. If that is what Labour wants, it is not what it did in 2008, but it is consistent with Phil Goff’s pledge to pay the unemployment benefit to the wealthiest New Zealanders.

Treaty of Waitangi—Settlement Progress

11. SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: What progress is the Government making towards its goal of settling historical Treaty claims by 2014?

Tomorrow the Prime Minister and other Ministers will be attending the apology ceremony with affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū, where the Prime Minister will formally deliver an apology on behalf of the Crown for breaches of the Treaty. The apology marks the completion of the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū comprehensive Treaty settlement process. Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa and the Crown will be able to move forward together, building a new relationship and a new future, having settled the past.

💬 Simon Bridges: What other progress has the Government recently made towards its goal of settling historical Treaty claims by 2014?

This week the Government introduced the Ngāti Apa North Island Claims Settlement Bill and the Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. This follows on from the recent passing of the Taranaki Whānui settlement legislation, the signing of joint terms of negotiation with the Ngā Punawai o te Tokotoru iwi, the signing of terms of negotiation with Ngāi Takato, the transfer of assets to Central North Island Iwi, and the signing of an agreement in principle with Ngāti Whare.

💬 Simon Bridges: What support has the Government received in reaching these and other recent milestones in Treaty settlements?

I have received invaluable support from the Māori Party, whose members are extremely committed to progressing Treaty settlements. With their support, I have been able to secure an extra $22 million in this year’s Budget to help speed up Treaty settlements; additional claimant funding, especially for those claimant groups not eligible for Crown Forestry Rental Trust funding; and promoting greater use of chief Crown negotiators and independent facilitators. Those initiatives sit alongside the two Treaty settlement hui I hosted alongside the Minister of Māori Affairs this year. Together we are committed to a process that enhances the mana of the Crown and of claimant groups, and makes up for the shameful performance of the previous Government.

Dairying—Use of Palm Kernel for Stock Feed

12. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he share the concerns of the New Zealand Grain Council that New Zealand’s use of a million tonnes of palm kernel to feed dairy cows is “aiding and abetting the destruction of the South East Asian jungle habitat”, and the concerns of Federated Farmers that “palm kernel is also threatening the viability of [New Zealand] maize production for stock feed”; if so, what course of action will he take to address these concerns?

on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: The Government is extremely concerned about the destruction of rainforests and indigenous forests, whether in Sumatra or in any other place on the planet. The short-term surge in the waste product palm kernel as a consequence of the drought is functionally irrelevant to any long-term solution. The long-term solutions lie in careful diplomacy internationally around illegal logging, sustainable certification procedures, which are—a plethora of them—lacking robustness, and, most interestingly of all, progress on the United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries, which will give developing country economies an alternative stake in their forests.

💬 Sue Kedgley: Does the Minister agree that New Zealand dairy exports are sold overseas as being clean and green, with cows being fed on grass pastures, and that if consumers realise that our dairy herds are one of the largest consumers—consuming a quarter of the world’s supply last year—of a product that is causing the destruction of the last great rainforest in the world, and that is destroying the habitats of endangered species such as the orang-utan, it will seriously damage the image of New Zealand dairy and other agricultural exports?

Ninety-nine percent of the feed of the dairy industry, according to the advice I have received, is still pasture. There was a temporary blip because of the drought. But the one thing of which I can assure the member is that the Government and I absolutely agree that the long-term sustainability branding image of New Zealand needs further work. This is a work in progress.

💬 Sue Kedgley: Can the Minister confirm that we imported 400,000 tonnes—equivalent to 800 million packs of butter, or 73,000 large elephants—in 2007 before the 2008 drought; and that we continued to import a quarter of a million tonnes in the first 4 months of this year, so that, whatever way we look at it, we are importing huge amounts of a feed that destroys the rainforest and the habitats of endangered species like the orang-utan, poses a biosecurity risk in New Zealand, and hurts Kiwi farmers?

I cannot confirm, without further advice, the exact ratio for converting kernel imports into elephant-tonne equivalents, but I can certainly confirm that we are encouraging the industry to continue to move towards greater sustainability, and working on the underlying problems that the member is concerned about, through the proper international processes.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: Does the Minister consider that contaminated containers of palm kernel, and the other 600,000 containers that passed through New Zealand ports without any physical inspection over the last year, pose a serious risk to New Zealand biosecurity; if so, how does the sacking of 60 skilled front-line people from his department help reduce that risk?

I can confirm that the advice I am receiving is that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s biosecurity division investigated those imports. There was fumigation, and the situation is fully under control.

💬 Sue Kedgley: Is the Minister aware of an AgResearch report from May 2006 that concluded that toxin-producing moulds in palm kernel shipments could “affect the health of animals if consumed over extended periods of time, be passed into milk, therefore pose a threat to human health.”, and “even small quantities of leucotoxins present in dairy and meat products could lead to difficulties in exporting primary produce and create an export issue for New Zealand’s dairy industry.”?

I am personally not familiar with that particular toxic mould, but I am confident that our scientists are.

💬 Sue Kedgley: Given consumers’ strong reaction to the news that Cadbury’s was using palm oil in its chocolate, is the Minister concerned that the international reputation of Fonterra, and indeed of New Zealand’s “100% Pure New Zealand” image, could suffer if it is known that our dairy farmers are one of the largest consumers of palm kernel, and consumed a quarter of the world’s palm kernel last year; if not, why not?

No, I am not familiar with what goes into Cadbury’s chocolate. But I must congratulate the company on its adoption of fair trade policies recently in respect of its cocoa.

💬 Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a letter from the New Zealand Grains Council, outlining its concerns about the impact of massive palm kernel imports on the grain industry’s viability.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

💬 Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table an internal report from AgResearch dated May 2006, showing that fungi in palm kernel is harmful to cows, and humans who consume milk products, as well as containing biosecurity risks.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

💬 Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a letter from Biosecurity New Zealand to Federated Farmers dated 17 February 2009, showing that palm kernel imports into Bluff contained maize seed that had to be destroyed, which has prompted a review of biosecurity risks from palm kernel.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

💬 Sue Kedgley: I seek leave, finally, to table a second letter from Biosecurity to Federated Farmers dated 14 April 2009, confirming that 106 insect identifications were found in palm kernel, including biosecurity risk organisms.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none.

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