Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

on behalf of the Minister for Infrastructure: The Government is investing several billion dollars in a substantial infrastructure programme that will unclog our economic arteries, improve productivity, and secure a stronger growth path for New Zealand in the years ahead. It is an investment that also directly supports thousands of Kiwi jobs. We have outlined plans to spend $7.5 billion on productive infrastructure over the next 5 years. This programme, now under way, will make a significant contribution to our economic recovery and help give businesses the confidence to invest, create jobs, and help secure a brighter future for all New Zealanders.

💬 David Bennett: Why is the Government investing over $10 billion into State highway construction over the next 10 years?

New Zealand’s geographic isolation and the distance between us and our competitors has always been a defining factor in our economy, which is why transport links are so important. Improvements in productivity will directly benefit our producers and exporters, and that is a major reason why we are investing $10 billion in State highway construction over the next 10 years. Through this investment we will significantly advance the seven roads of national significance in and around our five main centres. In addition, this construction programme will generate a significant number of jobs—for example, 300 on the Victoria Park project alone.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Given that the New Zealand Herald has derided the recent document on infrastructure as a plan when one is not having a plan, what criteria will be employed to access the worthwhile nature or the effectiveness of the infrastructure unit established by his Government?

The infrastructure unit has a number of functions that will help develop our infrastructure programme, and, in particular, assist the Government in determining such things as public-private partnerships. The point should be made to the member, and possibly to the New Zealand Herald writer, that the reason that infrastructure plan was not an infrastructure plan is that it was never intended to be one. It was a briefing on the development of that plan.

💬 David Bennett: What role will ultra-fast broadband play in supporting economic growth?

Fibre-based broadband services will deliver huge economic benefits for our country in terms of enhancing productivity, improving our global connectivity, and enhancing capacity for innovation. Our broadband commitment is in two parts: one is to deliver to rural areas the type of fast broadband that urban areas are now having developed, and the second is to provide urban New Zealand with a step change to ultra-fast broadband delivered through fibre to the premises. Fibre to the premises will allow firms to reduce their information technology costs, schools to provide 21st century education, the health sector to provide remote diagnostic services, families to telecommute, and Government agencies to deliver their services much more cost-effectively. All of these users will help boost national productivity and lead to stronger growth.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Given the admitted lack of a plan, and the fact that turnover in the construction sector actually dropped by nearly 2 percent in the current quarter, putting a drag on growth and adding to unemployment, why has it taken the Government so long to formulate its infrastructure bids; for example, delaying by up to 1 year the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband?

There has been no delay at all in the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband. I point out to the member that the Government’s programme is already assisting in the economic recovery and I note that we have had a small positive growth number for the June quarter. This Government is focused on securing longer-term growth and productivity increases and we will see those develop over the next few years.

💬 David Garrett: Is he aware of the sorry history of Governments attempting to stimulate the economy with infrastructure spending, only to find that by the time they get the spending under way the economy has already recovered, leaving the increased Government spending crowding out the private sector and contributing to inflation pressures that cause interest rates to rise?

The Crown has a role in investing in public infrastructure that will help unblock bottlenecks and secure growth for the New Zealand economy and improve our productivity. I have yet to see in the New Zealand environment any example where roading construction has been conducted and funded by the private sector; it is a role for the Government to improve the public roading network, for example.

💬 David Garrett: Is the Minister intending to somewhat scale back the huge increase in infrastructure spending planned to counter the recession, given that we now appear to be slowly coming out of it?

Although we are slowly, as the member says, coming out of the current recession, I am sure he would agree we have a huge problem in this country in terms of improving productivity and creating stronger economic growth in the years ahead. We have had very poor productivity growth over the last 9 or 10 years, which has helped to put us further behind our neighbouring country, Australia, in terms of economic growth and wealth of New Zealanders. The only way we are going to deal with that is for an aggressive across-Government approach to improve productivity and to assist the private sector, and infrastructure spending is one way in which we are doing that.

Education, Minister—International Travel

2. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: What were the highlights of her international travel this year as Minister?

on behalf of the Minister of Education: Representing New Zealand overseas is a privilege, and highlights for the Minister included opening a New Zealand export education fair in Bangkok in June and representing key Government initiatives like trades academies, national standards, and the Youth Guarantee at a recent OECD conference in Canada.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Why did she, while at the Conference of Commonwealth Education Ministers, decline an offer made through a UK Minister to host the equivalent meeting here early in 2011?

If the member chooses to set down a written question to the Minister, then he will get a very full reply to that question.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Was the Minister aware, when she rejected the offer to host the Conference of Commonwealth Education Ministers in 2011, that the Indian Minister of education generally travels with a large group of academics and educators and that India is a key target market for many New Zealand tertiary institutions?

I am sure that is something the Minister is aware of. But might I say that although the previous Labour Government had a view that it could raise national standards and that it could introduce things that give the benefits of something like the Youth Guarantee by having massive international talkfests, this Government does not believe that.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Does this Government value postgraduate international students more or less than primary age international students?

This Government values all international students for the experience they bring to this country.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Why, then, did the Minister reject the biggest opportunity offered to New Zealand in years to promote international education, in the same year that she is promulgating the opening up of New Zealand schools to international primary school students?

If the member would like to set that down as a written question to the Minister, he will get a very full answer.

Health Care—Policy

3. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he still stand by his policy to deliver better, sooner, and more convenient health care?

Despite the fact that the Labour Government left the new Government with $160 million of unfunded services to fill, around $600 million in capital requests largely unfunded, and quietly stripped $150 million out of Vote Health before the election, yes.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Several times now the Minister has referred to the stripping out of $150 million from Vote Health.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat; I have heard enough. The member is a senior member and he knows he cannot litigate an answer by way of a point of order. He may not like an answer, but supplementary questions are available to the Opposition to challenge an answer given. But he cannot litigate by way of a point of order.

💬 Dr Jackie Blue: What progress has been made in dealing with urgent cardiac cases at Auckland City Hospital, an issue that was recently identified in a report by the Ministry of Health?

The Government asked for a report earlier this year on the state of cardiac waiting lists in Auckland, and in May I received a comprehensive report that revealed that 144 cardiac patients in Auckland were waiting beyond the clinically safe time—some very seriously so. With the support of key ministry staff and the chair of the National Cardiac Clinical Network, the Government made an additional $5 million available to Auckland to have those patients treated. I am advised that now only five of the original 144 patients are still to have their operations. I thank those Auckland City Hospital and ministry staff for delivering badly needed operations to that group of patients.

💬 Dr Jackie Blue: What reports has he seen in relation to his statement in the House yesterday that there had been a record 11,805 increase in elective surgical discharges in the last financial year?

I regret to inform the House that the Opposition spokesperson on health tabled data that she claimed showed that the increase had actually happened under Labour, and that it actually was a 15,000-plus increase. The 15,000 increase is another claim from that member that is wrong; it was actually 5,000. The member failed to read the differing surgical definitions on the two pages she tabled. If she had read them, and I presume she did not, then she would have found she was comparing two very different sets of data—essentially, she was comparing apples with oranges.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: How can the health system be more convenient for the 5,019 people who have been added to health surgery waiting lists, at the same time as the Accident Compensation Corporation has cut $60 million from the health surgical budget?

I think there is no doubt that the Accident Compensation Corporation enabled more operations to be performed on its claimants last year. But the health system has quite a considerable challenge to face. The good news is that more services are being provided to New Zealanders in our public hospitals.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: How can the health system be better for nurses at Wellington Hospital, who are facing a zero percent wage increase, which is, in effect, a wage cut, or for doctors at Waikato Hospital, who have been told that the cap on administration staff has now been extended to include them—doctors, front-line staff?

The member shows that she is completely unaware that, in fact, more nurses are employed at Wellington Hospital than ever before. I suspect that part of the problem at Wellington Hospital might be that the previous Government spent hundreds of millions of dollars on building a new hospital in Wellington with fewer beds than the old hospital had.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table a speech given by the Minister of Health in the first 3 weeks that he held his portfolio, where he stated that he would not regard health professionals as a cost, but as a valuable resource.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Tertiary Education—Government Investment

4. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: Does she stand by her statement “Despite the significant economic challenges of these times, government has invested strongly in education.”; if so, does she consider that to be true of the tertiary sector?

on behalf of the Minister for Tertiary Education: Yes. I am advised that this year the total amount of funding for tertiary education in Vote Education will increase by 4.5 percent, from $2.66 billion in 2008-09 to $2.78 billion in 2009-10.

💬 Hon Maryan Street: Does the Minister think that funding polytechnics and universities so that they can enrol and educate more students is a better use of taxpayers’ money than funding students to go on benefits; if so, why is she refusing to invest in polytechnics and universities by lifting student number caps and financial penalties? Would she rather pay students benefits than pay to help them learn?

In respect of the first question, yes; in respect of the last question, no.

💬 Hon Maryan Street: Given the National Government’s support so far for a return to voluntary students association membership, has the Minister sought advice on the financial implications for universities if they are to cover the costs of the services that will be scrapped as a result of a lack of funding—services like welfare support, advocacy, publications and media, job support, and accommodation services—or does she intend to abandon student support services altogether?

In respect of the first part of the question, the National Government has supported the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill referral to the Education and Science Committee for a broad discussion about these issues. We think choice is a good thing. If services are up to scratch, people will join organisations that offer them. In respect of the second part of the question that the member has asked, I am pretty convinced that with an increase of 4-odd percent in tertiary spending over the coming year, the provision of tertiary education will continue at a reasonably high standard.

💬 Hon Maryan Street: Why does the Minister remain implacably opposed to reinstating funding to adult and community education programmes run through high schools, when courses that she claims to support—namely, English for speakers of other languages, te reo, and New Zealand Sign Language—will be axed or are under serious threat in 2010 in 25 high schools and the community organisations they support?

The Minister has made it clear on numerous occasions in this House over recent weeks that the Government will be spending $124 million on adult and community education over the next 4 years. The Government has made the decision to reprioritise some funding for initiatives such as the Youth Guarantee, which will provide 2,000 places across the country to disengaged youth. We think that is a pretty good use of taxpayers’ money.

💬 Hon Maryan Street: I seek leave to table a spreadsheet that I have compiled from information from high schools about the English for speakers of other languages, New Zealand Sign Language, and te reo courses that are to be axed or are under threat next year because of cuts to funding.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document, compiled by the member. Is there any objection to that? There is no objection.

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

Nuclear Disarmament—Support for United Nations Resolutions

5. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Why did New Zealand vote in December 2008 against United Nations General Assembly Resolution 63/75 which called for an international agreement against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, and against Resolution 63/47 calling for measures for reducing nuclear danger; and will he instruct the delegation to support these resolutions if they are put forward again this year?

on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Each year, in the General Assembly’s first committee on disarmament and international security, and subsequently in the General Assembly itself, India proposes the two resolutions referred to by the member. New Zealand votes against Resolution 63/75 to protest India’s attempts to use this resolution to gain credibility on nuclear disarmament while refusing to join the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. New Zealand votes against Resolution 63/47 due to the absence of any reference to the importance of joining the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty as a way to reduce nuclear danger. The resolution also requests that the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty States undertake a number of steps to reduce nuclear danger, but does not seek similar steps from States not party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty that possess nuclear weapons.

💬 Dr Kennedy Graham: Given the response, which draws a distinction between India, which has nuclear weapons and does not join the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, and other nuclear powers that do, how can the Minister reconcile the refusal to support all such resolutions pertaining to all countries that possess nuclear weapons, independent of their adherence to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, with the Prime Minister’s assurance to this House on 8 April that New Zealand, independent of that, supported all resolutions for a ban on the possession and use of nuclear weapons?

The reasoning behind the member’s question is faulty. New Zealand is prepared to support certain resolutions, and the member knows that. I refer the member to, for example, Resolution 63/49 proposed by Malaysia, which is much stronger than India’s resolution and in its operative paragraphs targets directly a full prohibition, whereas India’s resolution, by contrast, talks about a prohibition on the use or threat of use, but not the possession, of nuclear weapons. There are a number of resolutions. The member knows that. We support some. We have not supported the Indian ones, for the reasons already given.

💬 Hon Chris Carter: Does the Minister feel that he was enhancing New Zealand’s international reputation by voting against UN resolutions calling for a ban on nuclear weapons; and how does this action square with the boast of his leader, John Key, just last week: “We’ve been a leader in being a non-nuclear country and it’s an area President Obama raised with me.”

I have referred to the fact that we do support certain resolutions. I also refer to what the Prime Minister said in this House on 8 April—that resolutions are one thing, but actually getting work done is another. The Prime Minister said, for example, that he supported what President Obama had said in Prague in April 2009.

💬 Dr Kennedy Graham: Given the New Zealand support, as the honourable Minister has indicated, for Resolution 63/49, can he confirm, in light of President Obama’s undertaking at the United Nations yesterday to complete a nuclear posture review that “opens the door to deeper cuts and reduces the role of nuclear weapons”, that New Zealand will take a lead, with Costa Rica and Malaysia—as he identified—in initiating the commencement of negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention within the next 12 months?

I have already indicated the very strong support that New Zealand has given to, for example, the Malaysian resolution, and also that we take note of what President Obama said in Prague in April 2009. Of course we pay very close attention to what the President said in New York yesterday, and we will be following the position very carefully.

💬 Hon Chris Carter: Can the Minister tell us which action by his Government on international affairs he is most proud of: was it the decision to vote against the United Nations resolutions for a ban on nuclear weapons, was it the decision to drop New Zealand’s bid for election to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, was it the Minister’s silence over Israel’s actions in Gaza earlier this year, or was it his decision to turn New Zealand’s aid focus away from poverty elimination and to just a search for New Zealand business opportunities?

I do not know why the member for Te Atatū seems to be so opposed to the stance that this Government took in relation to the two resolutions that were the subject of the primary question, because his Government adopted the same approach.

💬 Dr Kennedy Graham: Can the Minister confirm that our voting policy on all United Nations resolutions on nuclear deterrence and disarmament this year will be based on the logical application of New Zealand’s global nuclear-free policy, instead of a political judgment of which country is sponsoring the resolution—the United States, Mexico, or India?

Well, of course, one has to scrutinise very carefully the wording of motions. I imagine that the same approach will be taken this year as was taken throughout the Labour Government’s period of office to Indian resolutions that were expressed in exactly the same terms as the motions that were put, and lost, in December 2008.

💬 Dr Kennedy Graham: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealand intends this year to support any resolution whose central thrust is nuclear disarmament, confining itself to an explanation of vote, if necessary, on any parts with which it may have difficulty, such as non-adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, rather than our using such concerns as a rationalisation for opposing the resolution in its entirety?

I cannot predict anything about the future. The member will have to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs about those particular resolutions, based on their wording, as and when the question arises in the first committee and then the General Assembly.

💬 Dr Kennedy Graham: I thank the Minister for the response. Will the Minister be able now to assure the House that the Prime Minister, at the United Nations this week, will commit this country to supporting all resolutions calling for an end to nuclear weapons, given President Obama’s statement yesterday that: “No single nation should pick and choose which nations holds nuclear weapons.”?

The primary question was directed at particular resolutions, and I responded, I would like to think, with some clarity to those. I have also responded to the Malaysian resolution question. I am unable to predict future policy; that will be for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to determine.

💬 Dr Kennedy Graham: In light of the Minister’s inability to predict future policy, can he perhaps explain current policy. Given President Obama’s undertaking at the United Nations yesterday to complete a nuclear posture review that “opens the door to deeper cuts and reduces the role of nuclear weapons”, how would he reconcile the inclusion of our SAS in the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, operating under NATO command, when NATO maintains a policy in support of nuclear deterrence—[Interruption]—and New Zealand opposes—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think the honourable member can hear the concern of members that the primary question related to certain resolutions of the UN, and the member’s supplementary question is now getting on to things like the SAS deployment in Afghanistan. I think it is a fairly wide stretch.

💬 Dr Kennedy Graham: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The reason for referring to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan is that New Zealand has a very strict nuclear-free policy that, under the 1987 legislation, precludes any cooperation with a nuclear weapon programme. To have our soldiers cooperating with an organisation that supports nuclear deterrence raises that issue for address.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If the member wants to raise questions about that issue, then he should lodge a primary question. I do not believe he can expect the Minister to have that particular information, given the primary question that the member lodged today. He still has a supplementary question to go. I am happy for him to reword his question in order to bring it within the Standing Orders.

💬 Dr Kennedy Graham: I seek leave to table Resolution 63/47, dated 12 January 2009, and headed “Reducing nuclear danger”.

💬 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.

💬 Dr Kennedy Graham: I seek leave to table Resolution 63/75, dated 13 January 2009, and headed “Convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons”.

💬 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.

💬 Dr Kennedy Graham: Finally, I seek leave to table document A/63/PV.61, dated 2 December 2008, which records the voting on those two resolutions.

💬 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.

💬 Keith Locke: To what extent does the Government, when making decisions like that to commit SAS troops to Afghanistan, take into account the fact that the body they will be operating under is based on nuclear deterrence, particularly in light of the resolutions against nuclear deterrence that the Government votes for at the UN?

As I endeavoured to say to the previous questioner, I can focus on particular resolutions in answering these questions today, but the question about the SAS goes far beyond the ambit of the primary question. If the member wants an answer to his question, if I am still acting Minister next week I would be happy to answer it. But he should put down a question on that.

Energy Efficiency—Television Campaign

6. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What new initiatives has the Government developed for energy efficiency?

Today I launched a prime-time television campaign to help New Zealanders to increase the energy efficiency of their homes, workplaces, and businesses. It is called the Energy Spot. Informative advertisements will screen 3 nights a week—on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday—at 6.50 p.m., as well as at 13 other times during the week. The advertisements will be shown on all four television channels. The initiative represents a difference in approach between the current Government and the previous Government. The previous Government chose to compel people by law to do certain things; this Government shows people the persuasive logic of making a choice themselves.

💬 Jacqui Dean: Why has the Government developed this initiative?

It is because we believe that encouraging New Zealanders to see the benefits of energy efficiency for themselves will be good not only for them but also for the economy. New Zealand households spend about $3.5 billion a year on energy, and businesses spend close to $13.5 billion. Households and businesses can make considerable savings for their own advantage. Giving people the information on how to do that, through little tips here and there, is the purpose of the initiative.

💬 Chris Hipkins: How will energy efficiency be enhanced by the recent decision to cap the number of homes that approved businesses can fit out under the Government’s home insulation and heating scheme, and what does the Minister say to the often small businesses that have scaled up their operations in order to heat and insulate more homes, only to find the funding tap has been turned off?

Let us be very clear: there was no funding tap at the time of the last election. There was an extravagant promise from the previous Labour Government that it might do something, but there was no action. This Government has committed $324 million over the next 4 years for this programme. Frankly, we have been delighted by the willingness of the industry to gear up and deliver the programme, and we are working through how we can make that possible for those who have made those commitments.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Will the Government increase funding to the home heating and insulation scheme so that the businesses doing the work can keep up with the demand, noting the comments in yesterday’s New Zealand Herald by staff at Premier Insulation, who argued that the good work of the programme is being reversed by poor decision-making, and that firms such as theirs will struggle to keep on installers? If he will not stump up with the required extra money, how can his quest for greater energy efficiency have any credibility?

The premise on which that question was asked is completely misrepresented by the questioner. The fact is that this is a new programme. There was no money for the programme prior to 1 July this year. In the short time since then a number of businesses have geared up, and that is great. But in the meantime, the Government needs the time, and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority needs the time, to work out how the excessive and wonderful demand for this programme can be met.

Early Childhood Education—Priority for Government

7. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement “Early childhood education and care is a top priority for this Government.”?

on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yes.

💬 Sue Moroney: How many new places has she funded for early childhood education services, given that her ministry estimates that 19,000 new places are required by 2011 just to maintain the increased participation rates achieved under Labour; can the Minister be careful not to include the additional places funded by the previous Labour Government when she answers?

Although I do not have those specific numbers with me today, I can advise the House that Vote Early Childhood Education has seen a 7 percent increase from last year in funds made available. In fact, $69.7 million of new money over the next 4 years was announced in the Budget this year, starting with Budget 2009, and I am sure that the sector will prioritise the spending in the interests of our children.

💬 Sue Moroney: In the interests of our children, then, will she lift the cap on tertiary providers, so that they can train more early childhood education teachers for this sector, where there is high demand, and which could be one of the few growth sectors for employment, particularly for women; if not, why not?

I am sure those ratios have been well thought through, and the basis and logic for them well-thought-out.

💬 Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister failed to answer the question. I did not ask anything about ratios. The question was about the cap of tertiary providers, and whether it would be lifted in order to train more early childhood education teachers. The question was not about ratios.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister is prepared to provide more information.

I am sure the logic for the cap was well-thought-out, and the logic behind it will do the best in providing provision and services for our children.

💬 Sue Moroney: When will the Minister turn her attention to making progress on the early childhood education sector, which she herself has said is a top priority for this Government?

The Minister’s attention has been firmly on this matter since 19 November, and will continue to be so right through her tenure in this role.

💬 Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a document titled “Long wait for preschool places”, dated 9 September 2009, published by the Timaru Herald.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a press article from the Timaru Herald. Is there any objection? There is.

💬 Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table a document titled “Big queues to get into preschools”, dated 8 September 2009, from the Christchurch Press.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table an article from the Christchurch Press. Is there any objection? There is.

Fisheries, Ministry—Compliance Operations

8. COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Fisheries: Has he received any recent reports of compliance operations within the Ministry of Fisheries?

Yes. Last week Ministry of Fisheries staff intercepted over 100 kilograms of pāua meat destined for the black market. This illegal activity is believed to be linked to a previous bust that resulted in the lead perpetrator receiving 18 months in jail. Additionally, a commercial fisher in Whangarei was recently convicted of using a dragnet. His boat was seized and forfeited to the Crown. I fully support the Ministry of Fisheries in its activities to clamp down on those who choose to ignore the law.

💬 Colin King: What steps has the new Government taken to improve support for the compliance teams within the ministry?

In Budget 2009 $4.2 million over 4 years was obtained to improve the number of fisheries officers and honorary fisheries officers. We will see 104 fisheries officers on the beach—104 in total—and approximately 250 honorary fisheries officers across New Zealand. We are lining up the police force on the beach. We are clamping down on illegal fishing activities. We are proud to fulfil this election promise.

Smoking—Commitment to Reduce Uptake in Young People

9. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Associate Minister of Health: Is she committed to reducing the number of young people who take up smoking in New Zealand; if so, what measures does she believe would achieve this?

on behalf of the Associate Minister of Health: Yes. The Associate Minister is aware that although smoking prevalence has steadily declined in New Zealand over the past 50 years, smoking rates continue to be persistently high amongst Māori and young people. The Minister has asked for and is awaiting advice from the Ministry of Health on activities to speed up progress on the number of New Zealanders quitting smoking or not starting to smoke. This advice will include a wide range of policy options. One of the Government’s six key health targets is better help for smokers to quit.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Is it the Government’s position that there is no evidence that a ban on tobacco displays would reduce youth smoking rates—as stated by the Minister of Health, Tony Ryall—or is it that there is evidence to support such a ban, as stated by the Associate Minister?

It is the Associate Minister’s view that there is sufficient evidence around the issue of banning tobacco displays.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question asked what the Government’s position was, as opposed to the view of the Associate Minister.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister gave a pretty fair answer to the question asked; certainly, I felt it was a pretty clear answer. The member still has more supplementary questions.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: What draft legislation or other documentation has the Associate Minister submitted to Cabinet to progress the removal of point-of-sale tobacco advertising or to bring about an increase in the price of tobacco?

Discussions are currently under way amongst Ministers on a wide range of issues associated with smoking. The member will be aware that more support to help smokers quit is one of the six key health targets of this new Government.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: What indications has the Associate Minister had from the Minister of Health, Tony Ryall, or the Prime Minister, John Key, that the Government is preparing to advance initiatives aimed at reducing the uptake of smoking amongst young New Zealanders?

The Associate Minister has quite regular discussions with the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister on a wide range of issues, and they have been talking quite frequently about the importance of one of the Government’s health targets, which is better support to help smokers quit. Ministers are very keen to support the Associate Minister in that work.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about initiatives to reduce the uptake of smoking, not assisting people to quit. The answer given was about cessation, not uptake.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think the member can be a wee bit pedantic about exactly what he is asking. As Speaker, I can never ensure that he will get a precise answer where he is asking what discussions have taken place between two Ministers, and it may not always be what he wants to hear. I think a reasonable answer has been given.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Would the Associate Minister support any legislation brought before the House that sought to bring about the removal of point-of-sale tobacco advertising?

The Associate Minister has given very clear views with respect to banning point-of-sale displays of cigarette advertising. She has also made it very clear she is working on a number of other initiatives as part of a multi-pronged and integrated approach to this tobacco issue.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a very similar point of order to the last one. This question, again, was a very direct one: “Would the Associate Minister support any legislation … ?”. That is how it started. There were no politics in it, and there was nothing fluffing it up. I am afraid we did not get a straight answer to that question.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the answer was perfectly adequate. There is no legislation before the House at the present time, and, therefore, the assumption would be that the Government would be bringing in legislation. The Minister said that the Associate Minister is working on a number of initiatives. I think that clears up the position quite well.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking further to the point of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I do not think I need further comment on this point of order. The question asked is clearly hypothetical, which is perfectly in order. But I think there are limitations on what can be expected in terms of the precision of an answer given to a hypothetical question. I think the Minister made very clear the views on such matters, and I think it was a reasonably comprehensive answer for the House.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to labour this point, but if that were the case then the appropriate answer surely would have been that it would depend on the legislation, or some answer like that. There was no reference to legislation in the answer, at all.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: That is because there is no member’s legislation at the moment, so the assumption is that it would be Government legislation. The further assumption is that the Associate Minister would bring that legislation into the House, and that was not the question asked. The answer was that other measures are being worked on. That should clear away the issue of what would happen with a hypothetical piece of legislation.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think the members make the point perfectly clear that where it is a hypothetical question, it is impossible to pin down an answer. If there was legislation in the pipeline, then questions could be more clearly answered, but with a hypothetical question I cannot ask a Minister to respond more clearly.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: I seek leave of the House to table the Smoke-free Environments (Removing Tobacco Displays) Amendment Bill for introduction as a member’s bill.

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

Youth Court—Manurewa Marae

10. HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of Justice: He aha te whakaaro mō te whakatūtanga o tētahi Kooti Taiohi ki te Marae o Manurewa?

[What is the rationale behind establishing a Youth Court to sit at Manurewa Marae?]

The establishment of a Youth Court sitting at Manurewa Marae extends a judicially led initiative spearheaded in Gisborne. Marae-based youth court sittings involve the wider community in an attempt to enhance the usual Youth Court processes. They are designed to increase accountability and reduce reoffending. I am visiting Gisborne next week and look forward to observing the marae-based initiative in action.

💬 Hone Harawira: Tēnā koe. E tautoko ana ia i tā Hōnore Tākuta Pita Sharples, hanga pakeke ake te marae i te Kooti mō rātou te hunga kua hāmenetia; ki te tautoko ia, he aha tāna ki te whakauru atu i tēnei momo tikanga ki ngā Kooti mō ngā Pakeke?

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Thank you. Does he support what Hon Dr Pita Sharples said that offenders held to account on a marae felt more comfortable in this setting than in a courtroom; if so, what will he do to include this kind of restorative justice in courts for adults?]

In respect of the second part of the question, which is in relation to expanding the initiative, as I said, this is a judicially led initiative. It is a matter for the Principal Youth Court Judge and the Chief District Court Judge to make those decisions and to decide on any expansion or otherwise in respect of this initiative. In respect of the first part of the question—the comments made by Dr Pita Sharples—anecdotally, that is similar to advice I have received.

💬 Hone Harawira: Hoi nō. He aha te tino kaupapa i tū ai te marae hei Kooti, ā, kei hea ngā huruhuru kia rere ai tēnei manu?

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Indeed. What is the real purpose for making the marae a court, and where are the resources to make this happen?]

As members of the House will be aware, the Youth Court process itself still takes place in the normal court for all young people. The purpose of the marae-based Youth Court is to monitor the young person’s progress and compliance with the family group conference plan. The family group conference plan is approved by the judge at a formal sitting of the Youth Court. In respect of the issue relating to costs, currently the ministry provides a small budget of between about $5,000 and $10,000 in total per annum, to cover things such as the hiring of marae and other costs of those sittings.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm that this announcement is based on the very successful trial of the Youth Court sitting on a marae in Gisborne, an initiative launched last year by Labour?

I can confirm that the Manurewa-based marae project, which has had some attention in the media today, is based on the initiative that is running in Gisborne. Although the marae-based Youth Court has been in place only since May 2008, anecdotal evidence suggests that young people participate more fully in the proceedings. There has been no formal evaluation done yet of the effectiveness of the initiative, but I watch it with interest.

Ministerial Accommodation—Legal Advice

11. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services: Was the legal advice from the Department of Internal Affairs that he spoke of yesterday informed by any legal advice from the Office of the Clerk of the House; if so, what was the date of the advice from the Office of the Clerk of the House?

No.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: How can the Minister substantiate that answer in light of an email dated 3 February between an official of Ministerial Services and the chief executive of Ministerial Services, which says: “I attach the relevant information, a declaration signed by the Hon Bill English together with a copy of his legal advice from the Office of the Clerk of the House.”, and the memo then concludes that therefore conditions have been met; how is it that the advice of the Office of the Clerk of the House was not part of the Government’s decision?

Earlier in the week I gave the House an explanation about the status of the email that Mr Hodgson refers to.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: If the status of the email is that it says something other than what it meant to say, what did it mean to say?

I do not know what it meant to say. What I do know is that it is wrong. If the member would like to put down a written question, then Ministerial Services will provide a proper explanation of the circumstances—[Interruption]—the proper explanation for the email sent on 3 February by an employee who no longer works for Ministerial Services.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: Who, then, did sight the Endeavour Trust deed to confirm that the pecuniary interest that was publicised in 2008 on the register is now declared to be no longer the case; who did sight the trust deed to ensure that the truth was being told here?

The member gets very excited about his own question when he should simply refer to the fact that the executive travel, accommodation, attendance, and communications services declaration 2003, brought down by the Rt Hon Helen Clark, was the provision in place at the time he is concerned about. It simply required that a pecuniary interest was denied. That was done.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that this is a very political issue but it was a very straightforward question: who sighted the trust deed? That was not addressed by the Acting Minister responsible for Ministerial Services when he answered.

It is because the question is being asked on an unreasonable premise, given that the questions around this arrangement can relate only to the determination of 2003, which all of the previous Labour Ministers operated under. Therefore, the question the member asks is irrelevant.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Minister has answered the question under the point of order. It would have been helpful if he had answered the question when he was asked it. I listened very carefully, and there was an interesting explanation around things, but the specific issue was not covered. I think that under the point of order the Minister has now clarified the situation.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister clarified it, as well, but I just want to check the understanding that no one sighted the—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, that is not a matter of order. That is a supplementary question. If the member is seeking to ask a supplementary question, that is fine, and he can ask that if he likes.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: Can the Minister confirm that no one sighted the Endeavour Trust deed?

What I can confirm is that the requirements that related to ministerial accommodation at the time were the same requirements that operated from 2003. There was no need for anyone to sight any trust deeds. There was a need for those responsible to be satisfied that there was no pecuniary interest. The test applied to that is the same test that is applied to every other member of Parliament.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that in that fuller explanation the Minister has, in fact, put himself in a position whereby he has made it clear that he is not answering. I want him to take this very, very carefully. He indicated that there were people responsible who had to make a determination. He had made that point in the middle of his answer. There were people responsible who had to make a determination, but he did not indicate that they had sighted the trust deed in order for that to happen. He was asked a very simple question as to whether they had sighted the trust deed. He indicated very clearly that someone had to sight it to determine it, but he did not indicate that that had happened.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have listened fairly carefully and long enough. I listened very carefully, obviously, because of the circumstances, to the Minister’s answer. As I heard the Minister’s answer, the Minister made it very clear that the issue of the trust deed was irrelevant. There is a further supplementary question available to the member, and he can ask further about it, but I cannot force the Minister to answer any more clearly than that. He made it very clear that it is an irrelevant document.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: Can the Minister confirm that the Endeavour Trust is listed as a pecuniary interest of the Hon Bill English in the 2008 register of MPs’ interests but that the Hon Bill English declared on 1 February this year that he had no longer any pecuniary interest—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If I can assist the member, the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services has no responsibility for declarations of pecuniary interest.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would the question have been in order if the member had said: “Did the Minister take into account the declaration—”

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker cannot get involved in coaching members as to what they should ask, and neither should the honourable member get involved by way of a point of order in assisting his colleagues. I am fairly familiar with the Hon Pete Hodgson’s university record, and I am sure he is perfectly capable of asking his own supplementary questions.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: Can the Minister confirm that if the Hon Bill English still had a pecuniary interest in the Endeavour Trust, as listed in the 2008 register of MPs’ pecuniary interests, he would not have been able to divert $48,000 per annum of taxpayers’ money into his pocket?

That goes well outside the responsibilities of the Minster responsible for Ministerial Services.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, no. It goes right to the core of the responsibilities.

With respect to the yelling and screaming that is going on on the other side, I say to the member that what he has failed to understand is that what was in place at the time were Helen Clark’s rules for how these things are dealt with, and they required, simply, that there was no pecuniary interest in the property. That situation was satisfied according to the terms of the rules.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I offered the Minister a hypothesis: if that, then this—question mark; and that, of course, was not addressed. I wonder whether it could be.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Hypothetical questions are difficult, but I invite the member to repeat his question, because I can understand his concern.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: Can the Minister confirm that if the Hon Bill English still had a pecuniary interest in the Endeavour Trust, as listed in the 2008 register of MPs’ pecuniary interests, he would not be able to divert taxpayers’ money into his pocket at the rate of $48,000 per annum?

As I said before, that goes well beyond the responsibilities of the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The dilemma I have is that it was a hypothetical question, and it is very difficult for me to ask a Minister to be absolutely precise in answering a hypothetical question. I have given the member the chance to repeat his question. I realise it was his last supplementary question—that is why I gave him the chance to repeat it. I think everyone can assess for themselves the answer given, and because it was a hypothetical question, I really cannot do better than that.

Bar, The—Standard

12. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Attorney-General: Does he stand by his observation that “some people contend that the overall standard of the bar, and particularly the criminal bar, is not high enough in New Zealand” and is the reason why there are so many delays?

Yes, I do. I regularly talk to members of the legal profession, and an increasing concern is that the standard of some lawyers working in our courts is not sufficiently high. One even told me recently of a lawyer who, having no knowledge of basic court etiquette, addressed the court by saying “Yo, judge.”

💬 Sandra Goudie: What does the Attorney-General believe can be done to improve the overall standard of the Bar?

I am tempted to say “Yo, Sandra.”! I outlined a number of suggestions in my recent speech to the Bar Association. These included an effective certification process for trial advocates, ongoing mandatory, effective continuing legal education, especially for those who are in their first 3 years of practice, and also a duty to cooperate with the court being written into the High Court Rules. I have also been advocating the development of an effective mentoring programme for some of our younger practitioners, and I will do whatever I can to assist such programmes.